UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


THE 


WORKS 


OF 


WILLIAM    H.    SEWARD 


EDITED   BY 

GEORGE    E.    BAKER 


"  Nature  and  Laws  would  be  in  an  ill  case,  if  Slavery  should  find  what  to  say  for  itself,  and  Liberty 
be  mute ;  and  if  tyrants  should  find  men  to  plead  for  them,  and  they  that  can  waste  and  vanquish 
tyrants,  should  not  be  able  to  find  advocates."  MILTON. 


IN    THREE    VOLUMES 

VOL.     I 


REDFIELD, 

110   AND    112   NASSAU   STREET,   NEW   YORK 

1853. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853, 

BY  J.  S.  REDFIELD, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  in  and  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New  York. 


C.   A.   ALVOH.D,   PRINTEa,   29  GOLD   ST. 


v.l 


PREFACE. 


IN    this    collection  of  Mr.  Seward's  Works,  it  is  intended  to 

present  the  public,  not    only  with  his   more  elaborate  speeches 

JH      and  writings,  but  also  with  his  occasional  and  unstudied  efforts. 

p      The    principles   and   measures  of  public    policy,  which  he   has 

J3      maintained,  receive  as  clear  an  illustration  from  the  latter  class 

cr* 

of  his   productions,  as  from    his   more    systematic  and  finished 

^     performances.      They    are,    accordingly,    important,    at    a    time 

«£• 

^_      when  the  political  views  of  Mr.  Seward  have  become  the  sub- 
ject of  discussion,  in  every  quarter  of  the  Union. 

Tj_ 

It  has  often  been  regretted  that  so  few  of  the  speeches  of 
the  eminent  men  of  a  former  age  have  been  preserved.  The 
history  of  our  own  country,  especially,  has  suffered  from  this 
f%  neglect.  "We  search  in  vain  for  the  speeches  even  of  James 
Otis,  which,  in  the  words  of  one  of  his  contemporaries, 
"breathed  the  breath  of  life  into  this  nation."  The  facilities 
of  the  present  day  leave  no  excuse  for  a  similar  neglect  in 
regard  to  our  own  orators  and  statesmen. 

The  Editor  of  these  volumes,  though  by  no  means  uncon- 
scious of  his  slight  qualifications  for  so  important  a  task,  has 
attempted  to  collect  and  prepare  for  publication  the  following 
works  of  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD.  A  desire  to  aid  in  dissemina- 
ting the  doctrines  and  principles  they  contain,  as  well  as  to 


IV  PREFACE. 

preserve  them  in  a  permanent  form,  must  plead  his  apology. 
For  a  number  of  years,  it  has  been  his  wish,  to  bring  these 
works  before  the  public.  He  has  only  waited  for  the  time, 
when  they  could  be  produced  without  exciting  a  suspicion  of 
personal  or  partisan  objects.  That  time,  in  his  opinion,  has  now 
arrived. 

It  is,  however,  perhaps  too  much  to  expect,  even  now,  a 
candid  hearing  from  all  parties.  "  Nothing,"  says  Mr.  Seward, 
in  one  of  his  letters,  "that  I  can  do  or  say,  or  that  can  be 
said  or  done  by  my  friends,  is  suffered  to  pass  without  exciting 
alarms  lest  it  may  have  an  ambitious  design  that  I  almost 
despise." 

To  the  friends  of  republican  principles  and  of  the  claims  of 
justice  and  freedom  everywhere,  the  Editor  believes  these 
volumes  will  be  welcome,  and  to  such  they  are  respectfully 
dedicated.  To  the  friends  of  Mr.  Seward,  also,  they  will  be 
acceptable,  as  a  complete  refutation  of  the  various  misrepre- 
sentations of  his  acts  and  opinions,  current  in  the  community, 
supplying  a  want  long  felt  and  frequently  expressed.  To  many 
of  these  friends,  the  Editor  is  already  indebted  for  assistance 
and  encouragement  in  his  undertaking,  for  which,  he  avails 
himself  of  this  place  to  express  his  acknowledgments. 

The  difficulty  of  preparing  a  select  edition  of  Mr.  Seward's 
works  was  felt  at  the  outset,  and  after  a  full  view  of  the  mat- 
ter, it  was  determined  to  embrace  every  thing  of  which  there 
had  been  any  public  record.  Ample  limits,  as  it  was  thought 
at  the  time,  were  accordingly  assigned  for  the  work.  But  the 
extraordinary  amount  of  interesting  and  valuable  matter  that 
presented  itself  for  publication  required  a  modification  of  the 
original  plan.  It  is  therefore  proper  to  say,  that  this  collection 
does  not  include  all  of  Mr.  Seward's  productions.  Those,  how- 
ever, which  have  been  omitted,  were  comparatively  of  local 
and  temporary  importance,  and,  in  many  cases,  were  too  im- 
perfectly reported  for  publication.  At  the  same  time,  nothing 


PREFACE.  V 

lias  been  left  out  of  the  edition  on  account  of  any  peculiar 
sentiment  or  opinion  it  expressed ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  every 
thing  which  has  been  particularly  obnoxious  to  controversy 
has  been  carefully  included. 

The  MEMOIR  which  follows,  though  written  with  heartfelt 
admiration  of  the  subject,  has  constantly  aimed  to  avoid  indis- 
criminate eulogy,  and  to  present  a  simple  but  complete  record 
of  Mr.  Seward's  life. 

The  SPEECHES  m  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK  contained  in  this 
volume,  while  they  will  serve  to  show  the  first  exercise  of 
that  power  of  debate,  which  now  in  its  full  development  ex- 
cites an  interest  throughout  the  country,  will  give  the  reader 
a  fresh  view  of  many  important  political  questions  of  State 
and  National  policy. 

THE  SPEECHES  AND  DEBATES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES  form  a  complete  record  of  Mr.  Seward's  efforts  in  that 
body  down  to  the  close  of  the  XXXIId  Congress.  Several 
speeches  delivered  after  the  first  volume  of  these  works  had 
gone  to  press,  will  be  found  in  the  third  volume. 

The  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS  in  this  volume  include  Mr.  Seward's 
pleas  in  the  case  of  J.  Fenimore  Cooper  vs.  Greeley  &  McEl- 
rath  ;  in  defence  of  "William  Freeman ;  in  the  case  of  Jones 
vs.  Yan  Zandt,  under  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1793 ;  in  the 
case  of  Many  vs.  Treadwell,  a  Patent  case;  and  in  defence 
of  Abel  F.  Fitch  and  others,  in  the  celebrated  Eailroad  Trial 
at  Detroit.  Several  others,  possessing  almost  equal  interest, 
had  been  selected  for  a,  place  in  the  works,  but  the  limits 
already  prescribed  made  it  necessary  to  omit  them.  Among 
these  may  be  named  an  argument  in  the  case  of  Wilson  vs. 
Kousseau,"*  involving  the  merits  of  the  Woodworth  Patent,  and 
an  Opinion  delivered  by  Mr.  Seward  while  a  member  of  the 
Court  of  Errors,  in  the  case  of  Parks  vs.  Jackson,  f 

*  Blatchford's  Circuit  Court  Reports,  VoL  I.  page  8. 
f  Wendell's  Reports,  Vol.  IX.  page  456. 


VI  PREFACE. 

Three  ENGRAVINGS  accompany  these  volumes — a  Portrait  of 
Mr.  Seward — his  Birth-Place — and  his  Residence  at  Auburn. 

The  portrait  is  a  faithful  copy  of  a  daguerreotype  taken  for 
the  purpose. 

The  view  of  Mr.  Seward's  early  home,  in  the  second  volume, 
was  engraved  from  a  sketch,  recently  made,  of  the  old  house 
which  is  still  standing  in  the  village  of  Florida,  in  Orange 
County. 

The  view  of  his  present  residence  at  Auburn,  in  the  third 
volume,  is  from  a  daguerreotype  taken  in  mid-winter.  A  brief 
description  of  the  mansion  and  grounds  will  be  found  in  the 
Preface  to  that  volume. 

THE  EDITOR. 

WILLIAMSBURGH,  L.  I,  March  1,  1853. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  MEMOIB. PAGE  xiii 

The  Seward  Family — Removal  of  Samuel  S.  Seward  to  Orange  County,  New 
York — His  Marriage  with  Mary  Jennings — Birth  of  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD — His 
Early  Habits  and  Love  of  Learning — Narrow  Escape  from  Drowning — Enters 
Union  College,  Scheneetady — Visits  the  South  as  a  Teacher — Returns  to  College — 
Position  among  the  Students — Graduates — Studies  Law  with  John  Duer  and  Og- 
den  Hoffman — Removes  to  Auburn — Character  as  a  Citizen  and  Lawyer — Opinions 
on  Slavery — Political  Prepossessions — Prepares  the  Address  of  a  Republican  Con- 
vention— Chosen  President  of  the  Young  Men's  Convention  at  Utica  in  1828 — Ten- 
dered a  Nomination  as  Candidate  for  Member  of  Congress — Elected  Senator  of  the 
State — Position  and  Speeches  in  the  Senate — His  Course  in  the  Presidential  Elec- 
tion of  1832 — Visits  Europe — Returns  and  Resumes  his  Seat  in  the  Senate — Mem- 
ber of  the  Court  of  Errors — Nominated  for  Governor — Appointed  Agent  of  the 
Holland  Land  Company — Misrepresentations  of  his  Course — Letter  to  Citizens  of 
Chautauque,  and  Complete  Vindication — Advocates  the  New  York  and  Erie  Rail- 
road— Second  Nomination  for  Governor,  and  Election — His  Efforts  while  Governor 
in  behalf  of  Agriculture,  Education,  Law  Reform,  Election  Reforms,  Militia  Re- 
forms, Free  Banking,  Abolition  of  Imprisonment  for  Debt,  Adjustment  of  Anti-Rent 
Difficulties,  Improvement  in  Prison  Management,  Removal  of  Last  Vestige  of  Sla- 
very, Enlargement  of  Erie  Canal,  Construction  of  Lateral  Canals,  New  York  and 
Erie,  Hudson  River,  Northern,  and  other  Railroads — His  Course  in  the  M'Leod 
Case  and  Virginia  Controversy — Reasons  for  Refusing  to  Pardon  Benjamin  Rath- 
bun,  John  C.  Colt  and  Others — His  General  Course  as  to  Pardons — The  Case  of 
James  Watson  Webb — His  Exercise  of  the  Veto  Power — Madame  D'Hauteville'fi 
Case — Suppressed  Veto  of  the  New  York  Registry  Law — Slavery  and  its  Inci- 
dents— Virginia  Controversy — Retires  from  Office — Mr.  Clay's  Nomination — Re- 
sumes his  Profession — Libel.Law  of — Freeman's  Trial — Fugitive  Slave  Case — Patent. 
Causes — Detroit  Case — Constitutional  Convention — Gen,  Taylor — Elected  Senator 
— State  of  Parties — President  Taylor — Review  of  his  Speeches  in  the  Senate — 
Conclusion. 

SPEECHES  is  THE  SENATE  OF  N>:w  YORK 1 

The  Militia  Bill — Election  of  Mayors  by  the  People — Removal  of  the  Deposits — 
The  Six  Million  Loan  Bill. 


Vlll  CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 

SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 51 

Freedom  in  the  New  Territories — Admission  of  California — The  Compromise  Bill 
— Freedom  in  the  District  of  Columbia — Freedom  in  New  Mexico — Indemnities 
for  French  Spoliations — The  Public  Domain — Welcome  to  Kossuth — Liberation  of 
the  Irish  Patriots — Freedom  in  Europe — Intervention — American  Steam  Naviga- 
tion— The  Collins  Steamers — Survey  of  the  Arctic  and  Pacific  Oceans — The  Whale 
Fisheries — The  American  Fisheries — Newfoundland,  <fcc. — Contested  Seat  of  Hon. 
Archibald  Dixon. 

DEBATES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 284 

Reception  of  Rev.  Theobald  Mathew — Discipline  in  the  Navy — The  Right  of  Peti- 
tion— On  Granting  Land  to  Emigrants — The  Census — Search  for  Sir  John  Franklin 
— Internal  Improvements  in  New  States — The  Patent  Laws — Peon  Slavery — The 
Compromise  Bill — Reception  of  Amin  Bey — Pre-emption  to  Emigrants — Mining 
Privileges  to  Emigrants  in  California — Commerce  in  the  Pacific — A  Mint  in  New 
York — The  Senatorial  Term — Maj.  Gen.  Winfield  Scott — Cheap  Postage — Reve- 
nues of  California — Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors — Contested  Seat  of  Sena- 
tor Yulee — The  Repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law — Pension  to  Widow  of  General 
Worth — The  Collins  Steamers — Steamers  to  Hamburgh — On  the  Printing  of  Louis 
Kossuth's  Letter — Duties  on  Gifts— Expedition  to  Japan — St.  Marie's  Canal — Ap- 
portionment of  Representatives  to  California — The  Patent  Laws — War  Steamers 
for  Harbor  Defence — The  Purchase  of  Catlm's  Indian  Gallery — The  Fisheries — 
The  Treaty  of  Nicaragua  and  John  M.  Clayton — Eulogium  on  the  Death  of  Hon. 
William  S.  Upham,  Senator  from  Vermont. 

FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS 391 

Case  of  Cooper  vs.  Greeley  &  McElrath,  Law  of  Libel — Defence  of  William  Free- 
man, Auburn,  1846 — Case  of  Jones  vs.  Van  Zandt,  in  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  Fugitive  Skive   Law  of  1793 — Case  of  Many  vs.  Treadwell,  Invention — 
Defence  of  Abel  F.  Fitch  and  Others,  Detroit,  1851. 
(See  Index  on  page  539.) 


CHRONOLOGICAL  INDEX  TO  THE  MEMOIR. 


A.D.    AET.  PAGE. 

1740             The  ancestors  of  Wm.  H.  Seward  natives  of  Wales xiii 

1795  His  father,  S.  S.  Seward,  removes  to  Orange  County,  New  York. . . 

His  mother,  Mary  Jennings,  of  Irish  extraction xiv 

1801             WILLIAM  HENRY  SEWARD  born  at  Florida,  Orange  Co.,  N.  Y xv 

His  early  habits  and  love  of  learning xvi 

1816     15     Enters  Union  College,  Schenectady xvii 

1819  18     Spends  six  months  at  the  South  as  a  Teacher " 

1820  19     Returns  to  College — position  among  the  Students xviii 

Graduates — Address  to  Tompkins — Relations  with  Dr.  Nott xx 

1822  21     Admitted  to  the  Bar — John  Duer  and  Ogdeu  Hoffman xxi 

1823  22     Removes  to  Auburn — Associated  with  Judge  Miller " 

Character  as  a  Citizen  and  a  Lawyer — Auburn 

Opinions  on  Slavery — Political  Prepossessions xxiv 

1824  23     Prepares  the  Address  of  a  Republican  Convention xxv 

1827  26     Delivers  a  Speech  for  Greece,  at  Auburn xxvi 

1828  27     Chosen  President  of  the  Young  Men's  Convention " 

Tendered  a  Nomination  for  Congress  and  Declines xxvii 

1830     29     Elected  to  the  State  Senate  by  the  Anti-Masons 

Position  and  Speeches  in  the  Senate xxviii 

1832  31     Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Wirt  Candidates  for  the  Presidency xxxii 

1833  32     Visits  Europe  and  Writes  a  Series  of  Letters xxxiii 

Returns  and  Resumes  his  Seat  in  the  Senate " 

Makes  a  great  Speech  on  the  Removal  of  the  Deposits xxxiv 

His  Position  as  Member  of  the  Court  of  Errors xxxv 

1834  33     Nominated  for  Governor xxxvi 

Appointed  Agent  for  the  Holland  Land  Company xxxvii 

Favors  the  New  York  and  Erie  Railroad xxxviii 

1838  37     Second  Nomination  for  Governor xxxix 

Letter  to  the  Abolitionists xl 

1839  38     Inaugurated  Governor xli 

Proposes  a  Plan  to  Extend  the  Blessings  of  Education xlii 

Urges  a  System  of  Law  Reform xliv 

Advocates,  Successfully,  the  Plan  of  Free  Banks xlv 


X  INDEX  TO  MEMOIR. 

A.D.    AKT.  P»SIC 

1840     89     Effects  the  Entire  Abolition  of  Imprisonment  for  Debt xlvi 

Attempts  to  Settle  the  Anti-rent  Difficulties xlvii 

Advocates  Reforms  in  the  Election  Laws xlviii 

His  Course  in  the  M'Leod  Case 1 

Enlargement  of  Erie  Canal — Construction  of  Lateral  Canals liii 

Positions  of  the  two  Parties  on  Improvements liv 

Gov.  Seward  Opposes  the  Suspension  of  the  Public  Works Iv 

Advocates  the  Erie,  Central,  Northern,  and  Hudson  Railroads hi 

Refuses  to  Pardon  Benjamin  Rathbun  and  John  C.  Colt Iviii 

Grants  a  Conditional  Pardon  to  James  "Watson  Webb Ix 

Vetoes  a  Bill  in  relation  to  Madame  D'Hauteville Ixi 

Suppresses  a  Veto  of  the  New  York   Registry  Law 

Urges  the  Repeal  of  all  Acts  favorable,  to  Slavery Ixii 

Recommends  a  Jury  Trial  for  Fugitive  Slaves " 

Recommends  the  Extension  of  the  Right  of  Suffrage Ixiii 

Controversy  with  the  Executive  of  Virginia  relating  to  Fugitives.. .  Ixiv 

1842  41     Signifies  his  intention  to  retire  from  Office,  Reasons  therefor Ixvi 

Mr.  Clay  Proposed  for  the  Presidency — Mr.  Seward's  Views Ixvii 

1843  42     John  Quincy  Adams  Visits  Auburn — Mr.  Seward's  Address Ixviii 

Resumes  the  Practice  of  his  Profession Ixix 

His  Disinterestedness,  Zeal,  and  Sacrifices  as  a  Lawyer 

1846  44  Libel  Suit,  Cooper  vs.  Greeley — Fugitive  Slave  Case Ixx 

Trial  of  Wyatt  and  Freeman,  Great  Excitement bcxi 

His  Experience  as  Counsel — Patent  Cases — Detroit  Case Ixxx 

His  Course  towards  Mr.  Clay  in  the  Election  of  1844 Ixxxi 

1846     45     Advocates  a  Convention  to  form  a  New  Constitution Ixxxii 

1848  47     Gen.  Taylor's  Election,  Mr.  Seward's  Views  and  Course Ixxxiii 

1849  48     Elected  Senator— State  of  Parties— Freedom " 

His  Relation  with  President  Taylor Ixxxi  v 

1850  49     Speeches  in  the  Senate — California — The  Higher  Law Ixxxv 

Compromise,  District  of  Columbia,  New  Mexico Ixxxvi 

Public  Lands — Kossutli,  O'Brien,  Meagher Ixxxvii 

1852  51     Vindication  of  John  Quiucy  Adams — Gen.  Cass Ixxxvii i 

Pacific  Railroad— John  M.  Clayton — A.  H.  Buell " 

1853  52     Duties  on  Railroad  Iron — Texas  Creditors " 

CONCLUSION xc 


BIOGRAPHICAL  MEMOIR 


OF 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


MEMOIR. 


THE  ancestors  of  WILLIAM  HENKY  SEWAKD  were  of  Welsh  ex- 
traction. The  first  of  that  name  in  America  emigrated  from 
"Wales  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Ann,  and  settled  in  Connecticut. 
A  branch  of  the  family,  from  which  Mr.  Seward  is  descended, 
removed  to  Morris  Co.,  N.  J.,  about  the  year  1740.  His  paternal 
grandfather,  John  Seward,  resided  in  Sussex  Co.,  in  that  state, 
where  he  sustained  a  high  reputation  for  enterprise,  integrity  and 
ability.  On  the  breaking  out  of  the  Revolution,  he  became  a 

«/  o  / 

prominent  leader  of  the  whig  party,  and  on  more  than  one  occa- 
sion during  the  long  struggle,  was  engaged  in  active  service.  He 
died  in  1799,  leaving  a  family  of  ten  children.  His  son,  Samuel  S. 
Seward,  received  an  academic  and  professional  education,  instead 
of  a  share  in  the  paternal  inheritance.  Having  completed  his 
studies,  he  established  himself  in  the  practice  of  medicine  in  his 
native  place,  and  soon  after  became  connected  in  marriage  with 
Mary  Jennings,  the  daughter  of  Isaac  Jennings,  of  Goshen, 
New  York. 

Removing  to  Florida,  a  village  in  the  town  of  Warwick,  in 
Orange  Co.,  1ST.  Y.,  in  the  year  1795,  he  combined  a  large  mer- 
cantile business  with  an  extensive  range  of  professional  practice, 
each  of  which  he  carried  on  successfully  for  the  space  of  twenty 
years.  He  retired  from  active  business  in  1815,  and  devoted  him- 
self to  the  cultivation  of  the  estate,  of  which,  by  constant  industry 
and  economy,  he  had  become  the  owner.  Dr.  Seward  was  a  man 
of  more  than  common  intellect,  of  excellent  business  talents,  and 
of  strict  probity.  After  his  withdrawal  from  business,  he  was  in 
the  habit  of  lending  money  to  a  considerable  extent  among  the 


xiv  THE  SEWARD  FAMILY. 

farmers  in  his  neighborhood  ;  and  it  is  said  that  no  man  was  ever 
excused  from  paying  the  lawful  interest  on  his  loans — that  no  man 
was  permitted  to  pay  him  more  than  that  interest — and  that  no 
man  who  paid  his  interest  punctually  was  ever  required  to  pay 
any  part  of  the  principal.  He  was  a  zealous  advocate  of  repub- 
lican principles,  and  exerted  a  leading  influence  in  the  affairs  of 
the  party.  In  1804,  he  was  elected  to  the  legislature,  and  during 
the  continuance  of  the  republicans  in  power,  he  was  never  with- 
out one  or  more  offices  of  public  trust.  Although  not  a  member 
of  the  legal  profession,  he  was  appointed  First  Judge  of  Orange 
County,  in  1815,  which  office  he  held  for  seventeen  years.  His 
exercise  of  the  judicial  functions  was  marked  by  discretion,  im- 
partiality, and  promptness,  and  he  is  remembered  to  this  day  as 
one  of  the  best  judges  the  county  ever  had.  After  a  visit  to  Eu- 
rope, he  lived  in  the  enjoyment  of  universal  respect  until  1849, 
when  he  died  in  a  ripe  old  age.  Dr.  Seward  was  the  friend  of 
religion,  education,  and  public  improvement.  He  founded  the 
"  S.  S.  Seward  Institute,"  at  Florida,  an  excellent  high  school  for 
young  persons  of  both  sexes.  He  endowed  this  seminary  with  a 
permanent  fund  of  $20,000,  and  continued  its  steadfast  friend 
until  the  close  of  his  life. 

The  wife  of  Dr.  Seward  was  Mary  Jennings,  whose  family  had 
emigrated  from  Ireland  at  an  early  day.  She  was  a  woman  of  a 
clear  and  vigorous  understanding,  with  singular  cheerfulness  of 
temper,  and  while  devoted  with  untiring  industry  to  the  interests 
of  her  family,  was  a  model  of  hospitality,  charity,  and  self-for- 
getfulness.  She  died  in  1843. 

The  subject  of  this  memoir  never  forgot  that  he  had  Irish  blood 
in  his  veins.  This  fact  serves  to  explain,  in  part,  the  strong  at- 
tachment he  has  always  cherished  for  the  Irish  population  of  our 
country.  While  travelling  through  Ireland  in  1833,  his  indigna- 
tion was  greatly  aroused  by  the  sight  of  the  oppressions  inflicted 
on  the  people  by  the  British  Government.  He  ascribed  a  large 
share  of  the  miseries  of  that  unhappy  country  to  its  political  mis- 
management, and  especially  to  the  annihilation  of  its  parliament, 
by  the  act  of  union.  In  writing  home  from  Ireland,  he  expresses 
himself  in  the  following  terms : 

"  But  all  this  glory  has  departed.  The  very  shado\v,  (and  for  a  long  time  the  Irish 
Parliament  was  but  the  shadow)  of  independence  has  vanished  ;  Ireland  has  surren- 
dered the  individuality  of  her  national  existence,  to  share,  like  a  younger  sister,  that 


WILLIAM   HENRY   SEWARD.  XV 

of  England.  The  walls  of  the  parliament  house  remain  in  all  their  primitive  grandeur, 
to  reproach  the  degeneracy  of  her  statesmen.  Whilst  traversing  its  apartments,  I  re- 
verted to  the  debate  when  the  degenerate  representatives  surrendered  their  parlia- 
ment ;  and  I  thought  that  had  I  occupied  a  place  there,  I  would  have  seen  English 
armies  wade  in  blood  over  my  country,  before  I  would  have  assented  to  so  disgraceful 
an  union.  Something  might  have  been  spared,  after  the  deed  was  consummated,  to  the 
wounded  pride  of  the  Irish  people.  The  parliament  house  ought  to  have  been  closed, 
and  left  in  gloomy  solitude,  a  monument  to  remind  the  people  that  they  once  had  a 
country.  But  this  was  too  great  a  concession  for  the  economy  of  the  English  adminis- 
tration of  affairs  in  Ireland.  They  who  build  palaces  and  monuments  with  a  profuse 
hand,  on  the  other  side  of  the  channel,  sold  the  Irish  Capitol,  and  it  was  forthwith  con- 
verted into  a  hall  for  money-changers.  I  confess  that  overleaping  all  the  obstacles 
which  are  deemed  by  many  well-wishers  of  Ireland  insurmountable,  I  wish  the  repeal 
of  the  union.  I  will  not  believe  that  if  relieved  of  that  oppressive  act,  she  does  not 
possess  the  ability  to  govern  herself." 

In  a  private  letter,  written  by  Mr.  Seward  in  1840,  to  a  gentle- 
man who  had  taken  strong  exceptions  to  his  sentiments  in  relation 
to  Irishmen,  the  following  passage  occurs,  in  regard  to  the  Irish 
lineage  of  his  mother.  After  defending  the  character  of  the 
Irish  from  some  severe  charges  made  by  his  correspondent,  and 
alluding  to  their  many  virtues,  he  says  : 

"  If  this  confession  of  faith  seems  strange  to  you,  permit  me  to  explain  that  I  could 
not  believe  otherwise,  without  doing  dishonor  to  a  mother  eminent  for  many  virtues, 
and  to  the  memories  of  humble  ancestors,  whose  names  will  not  be  saved  from  obscurity 
by  the  record  of  any  extraordinary  vices." 

WILLIAM  HESTRY  SEWARD  was  born  in  Florida,  May  16th,  1801. 
The  house  in  which  his  parents  then  resided  is  still  standing  ;  but 
the  old-fashioned  village  church  and  school-house,  where  his 
youthful  feet  were  wont  to  tread,  have  given  place  to  more  mod- 
ern structures.  A  venerable  forest-tree  on  the  ancient  homestead 
still  overshadows  a  clear,  bubbling  spring  of  water,  which  Wil- 
liam was  in  the  habit  of  frequenting  in  his  school-boy  days,  with 
his  books,  for  the  purpose  of  reading  and  study  in  its  cool  and 
pleasant  retirement.  His  boyhood  is  well  remembered  by  the 
aged  inhabitants  of  his  native  village.  They  love  to  recall  their 
predictions  of  the  future  eminence  of  the  studious  lad,  whose 
diligence  and  zeal  had  already  attracted  their  attention.  The 
colored  servant,  then  a  slave  of  his  father's,  who  led  him  in  in- 
fancy, and  shared  his  juvenile  sports,  still  lives  to  rejoice  in  the 
bounty  of  her  young  companion,  who  has  given  a  comfortable 
home  for  her  old  age,  in  memory  of  their  early  attachment. 

The  subject  of  our  narrative  entered  upon  life  amidst  external 
circumstances  adapted  to  cherish  and  develope  the  higher  elements 


xvi  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  HIS   BOYHOOD. 

of  his  nature.  The  local  scenery  of  Florida  is  scarcely  surpassed 
in  the  country  for  beauty  and  magnificence.  On  each  side,  moun- 
tains of  impressive  grandeur  rear  their  blue  summits  into  the 
skies,  while  the  broad  and  fertile  valleys,  watered  by  numerous 
rivulets  and  miniature  lakes,  enriched  by  genial  and  appropriate 
culture,  and  smiling  in  joyous  abundance,  complete  the  majestic 
and  lovely  panorama.  The  people  of  Florida,  unlike  the  inhabi- 
tants of  most  other  towns  in  that  part  of  the  state,  were  originally 
emigrants  from  £s"ew  England.  They  were  accordingly  imbued 
with  much  of  the  stern  and  lofty  spirit  of  the  Puritans,  while 
their  descendants  still  retained  many  of  their  habits  and  feelings. 
Brought  up  amidst  such  sublime  and  ennobling  scenes  of  nature — 
inheriting  from  a  worthy  ancestry  the  purest  sentiments  of  honor 
and  patriotism — imbibing,  with  his  mother's  milk,  the  love  of 
truth,  freedom,  and  equality, — the  mind  of  young  Seward  early 
received  a  powerful  impulse  towards  the  career  of  beneficent 
greatness,  which  has  amply  fulfilled  the  prophetic  anticipations  of 
his  youthful  associates  and  admirers. 

One  of  the  first  acts  remembered  by  the  friends  of  young  Wil- 
liam Henry,  was  in  no  small  degree  significant  of  his  juvenile 
tendencies.  He  ran  away  to  school — most  truants  run  in  the  op- 
posite direction.  His  taste  for  books  was  displayed  at  an  early 
age.  They  were  his  favorite  companions,  and  he  was  seldom  seen 
without  a  volume  in  his  hands.  His  thirst  for  knowledge,  once 

O     ' 

nearly  cost  him  his  life.  When  about  twelve  years  of  age,  re- 
turning near  nightfall  from  a  pasture  on  his  father's  farm,  driving 
home  the  cows,  he  read  a  book  as  he  walked,  giving  an  occasional 
look  to  his  charge,  that  was  travelling  quietly  before  him.  A 
party  of  boys  espied  the  abstracted  herdsman,  and  disturbed  his 
studious  reveries  with  a  volley  of  small  stones.  Eesolved  not  to 
be  disturbed  in  his  reading  by  the  missiles  of  his  thoughtless  com- 
panions, he  turned  his  back  towards  them,  and  walked  backwards 
with  his  eye  intently  fixed  upon  his  book.  In  a  short  time,  he  in- 
sensibly diverged  from  the  path,  and  missing  the  bridge  over  a 
small  creek,  was  thrown  into  the  water.  An  elder  brother,  who 
had  witnessed  the  accident,  drew  him  from  the  stream  in  a  state 
of  unconsciousness,  and  he  was  fortunately  restored  without 
serious  injury. 

His  precocious  intellect,  and  his  docile,  cheerful  disposition,  led 
his  parents  to  decide  on  giving  him  a  superior  education  to  that 


SOJOURN  AT  THE  SOUTH.  XV11 

received  by  the  other  members  of  the  family.  The  common 
school  system  had  not  yet  been  established  in  the  state  of  New 
York,  and  he  attended  several  different  schools  in  the  vicinity  of 
his  father's  residence,  until  the  age  of  nine  years.  At  this  period, 
he  was  sent  to  Farmers'  Hall  Academy,  at  Goshen,  which  then 
boasted  of  having  had  the  celebrated  Aaron  Burr  and  Noah  Web- 
ster among  its  pupils.  He  pursued  his  studies  at  this  seminary, 
and  at  an  academy  afterwards  established  in  Florida,  until  the 
year  1816.  He  was  now  but  fifteen  years  of  age,  when  he  was 
presented  for  admission  to  Union  College,  Schenectady.  The 
thin,  pale,  sandy-visaged  boy  was  found  qualified  for  the  junior 
class,  but  on  account  of  his  extreme  youth  was  persuaded  to  enter 
the  sophomore. 

The  college  career  of  young  Seward,  as  related  by  his  contem- 
poraries, gave  brilliant  indication  of  the  rare  qualities  for  which 
he  has  since  become  distinguished.  The  traits  of  the  future  legis- 
lator and  statesman  were  foreshadowed  in  the  character  of  the 
modest  youth  during  his  period  of  academic  retirement.  Even 
then  he  displayed  the  manly  originality  of  conception — the  sturdy 
independence  of  purpose — the  firm  adherence  to  his  convictions 
of  right — the  intrepid  assertion  of  high  moral  principles — the 
careful  examination  of  a  cause  before  appearing  in  its  defence — 
the  sympathy  with  the  weak  and  oppressed — and  the  intellectual 
vigilance  and  assiduity  in  the  pursuit  of  truth, — which  have 
formed  such  conspicuous  and  admirable  features  in  his  public 
career. 

His  favorite  studies  in  college  were  rhetoric,  moral  philosophy, 
and  the  ancient  classics.  It  was  his  custom  to  rise  at  four  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  and  prepare  all  the  lessons  of  the  day.  At  night, . 
while  the  other  students  were  engaged  in  getting  ready  the  exer- 
cises of  the  next  morning,  he  devoted  his  leisure  to  general  read- 
ing, and  literary  compositions  for  class  declamation  or  debates  in 
society  meetings. 

In  the  year  1819,  Seward,  who  was  then  in  the  senior  class,  and 
in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  age,  withdrew  from  college  for  about 
a  year,  passing  six  months  of  the  time  as  a  teacher  at  the  south. 
The  spectacle  of  slavery  could  not  fail  to  make  a  deep  impression 
on  his  mind.  He  witnessed  scenes  which  aroused  him  to  reflec- 
tion on  the  subject,  and  produced  the  hostility  to  every  form  of 
oppression,  which  has  since  become  ingrained  in  his  character. 
VOL.  I.— B. 


xviii  RETURN  TO  COLLEGE. 

One  of  the  many  incidents  which  occurred  to  him  may  be  related 
in  this  place. 

"While  travelling  in  the  interior  of  the  state,  he  approached  a 
stream  spanned  by  a  dilapidated  bridge,  that  had  become  almost 
impassable.  lie  forded  the  river  with  no  little  difficulty,  and 
met  on  the  opposite  side  a  negro  woman  with  an  old  blind  and 
worn-out  horse,  bearing  a  bag  of  corn  to  mill.  The  poor  slave 
was  in  tears,  and  manifested  great  distress  of  mind.  She  was 
afraid  to  venture  on  the  bridge,  and  the  stream  seemed  too  rapid 
and  violent  for  the  strength  of  her  horse.  She  was  reluctant  t«. 
return  to  her  master,  without  fulfilling  her  errand,  being  fearfiii 
of  punishment.  The  heart  of  the  young  northerner  was  moved 
He  went  to  her  assistance,  and  attempted  to  lead  the  horse  across 
the  bridge.  But  the  wretched  beast  was  not  equal  to  the  effort 
He  made  a  false  step,  and  falling  partly  through,  became  wedged 
in  among  the  plank  and  timbers.  Seward  tried  in  vain  to  extri- 
cate him.  Despairing  of  success,  he  mounted  his  own  horse, 
rode  to  the  master's  residence,  and  informed  him  of  the  accident, 
and  attempted  to  excuse  the  slave.  In  return  for  his  kind- 
ness, he  was  met  with  a  volley  of  imprecations  on  himself,  the 
slave,  the  horse,  the  bridge,  and  all  parties  and  things  concerned. 
His  disgust  at  this  adventure  taught  him  a  lesson  of  wrisdorn, 
which  he  never  forgot. 

Returning  to  college  in  1820,  he  found  the  students  in  a  state 
of  great  excitement.  They  had  hitherto  been  divided  into  two 
literary  societies,  the  Philomathean  and  the  Adelphic,  between 
which  an  earnest,  but  not  unfriendly  rivalry  subsisted.  The  for- 
mer was  the  most  popular  with  the  students,  while  the  latter 
claimed  the  most  diligent  scholars.  Young  Seward  was  a  member 
of  the  Adelphic,  and  entered  into  the  interests  of  the  society  with 
characteristic  zeal.  During  his  absence,  some  twenty  or  thirty 
students  from  the  southern  states  had  left  Princeton  College  and 
entered  Union.  These  attached  themselves  to  the  Philoma- 
thean Society,  giving  it  a  great  superiority  in  numbers  over  its 
rival.  Questions  soon  arose  in  the  society,  on  which  the  members 
divided  geographically.  The  southern  students  were  left  in  a  mi- 
nority, and  obtaining  a  charter  from  the  college  faculty,  organized 
a  third  society  called  the  Delphian  Institute.  Their  secession 
weakened  the  Philomathean,  and  was  generally  regarded  by  the 
older  members  of  the  rival  society  as  a  triumph  on  their  side. 


COLLEGE  HONORS.  XIX 

The  younger  Adelphics,  however,  took  a  different  view,  favoring 
the  Philomatheans,  on  the  ground  that  the  secession  was  factious 
and  sectional.  Seward,  whose  experience  at  the  south,  and  popu- 
larity with  all  classes  in  college,  served  to  qualify  him  for  the 
office,  virtually  became  umpire  between  the  two  parties.  After  an 
impartial  hearing  of  the  question,  he  decided  in  favor  of  the  Philo- 
matheans, and  against  the  Delphian  Institute — thus  siding  with 
the  sophomores  and  freshmen,  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  his 
own  classmates.  He  thereby  incurred  no  small  odium.  The  fac- 
tion, which  he  had  condemned,  caused  him  to  be  arraigned,  with 
a  view  to  his  expulsion  from  the  Adelphic  Society.  The  members 
resolved  themselves  into  a  court,  while  a  prominent  member  of 
his  own  class  acted  as  public  prosecutor.  Seward  conducted  his 
own  defence.  After  the  testimony  was  completed,  he  summed 
up  the  merits  of  the  case,  closing  a  powerful  argument  with  a 
thrilling  recital  of  his  course  throughout  the  controversy.  De- 
claring that  he  was  indifferent  to  what  might  be  said  of  him  by 
the  public  prosecutor — that  he  had  no  wish  to  know  who  voted 
for  and  who  against  him — and  that  he  would  not  embarrass  the 
vote  of  any  member  by  his.  presence,  or  by  inquiry  about 
his  vote  at  any  time  afterward — he  abruptly  left  the  cham- 
ber in  which  the  trial  was  held.  In  half  an  hour,  the  rush  of 
students  from  the  hall  showed  that  the  case  was  decided.  Soon, 
his  room  was  crowded  with  sophomores  and  freshmen,  ardent 
with  victory,  and  loud  in  congratulations  that  the  prosecution  had 
been  voted  down.  The  cause  of  law  and  order  was  sustained 
against  the  seceders,  and  the  integrity  of  the  union  in  Union  Col- 
lege fully  vindicated. 

There  was  still  another  trial  in  college  for  the  young  student. 
Three  commencement  orators  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  Adel- 
phic Society.  This  appointment  was  deemed  the  highest  college 
honor.  Seward  was  a  prominent  candidate.  His  scholarship,  his 
eloquence,  and  his  character  presented  equally  strong  claims  in 
his  favor.  But  the  hostile  faction  among  the  friends  of  the  Del- 
phian Institute,  established  a  vigorous  opposition.  An  earnest 
canvass  was  maintained  for  several  weeks.  No  pains  were 
spared  to  defeat  the  election  of  Seward.  The  choice  was  at 
length  made,  and  he  gained  a  decided  triumph.  The  subject  of 
his  oration  was,  "  The  Integrity  of  the  American  Union."  This 
was  a  chaste  and  manly  performance,  replete  with  vigorous  sense 


XX  GOV.  TOMPKINS— DR.  NOTT. 

and  patriotic  feeling.  It  was  listened  to  with  enthusiasm  by  an 
intelligent  audience,  and  called  forth  warm  commendations  in 
the  public  prints. 

Seward  graduated  among  the  most  distinguished  scholars  in 
his  class.  He  shared  his  academic  honors  with  several,  who 
have  since  arisen  to  eminence  in  different  walks  of  literature  and 
public  life.  Of  these,  we  need  only  mention  the  names  of  Hon. 
William  Kent,  who  inherits  the  legal  mind  and  rare  attainments 
of  his  father,  the  celebrated  chancellor ;  Rev.  Dr.  Hickok,  now 
vice-president  of  Union  College,  and  as  an  erudite  and  profound 
metaphysician,  without  an  equal  among  American  scholars ;  and 
Kev.  Tayler  Lewis,  Professor  of  Greek  in  Union  College,  distin- 
guished no  less  as  an  adroit  and  energetic  controversialist,  than 
as  a  classical  scholar  of  consummate  accomplishments. 

An  incident,  showing  his  standing  in  the  college,  and  his 
early  development  of  talent,  was  thus  described  by  a  public  jour- 
nal, many  years  since : 

"  The  year  1820  was,  as  our  readers  will  remember,  the  epoch  of  the  great  contest 
between  Tompkins  and  Clinton.  The  interest  excited  by  this  struggle  pervaded  all 
classes  and  ages  of  the  community,  and  it  was  not  in  the  glowing  temperament  of  "Wil- 
liam H.  Seward  to  remain  neutral  He  was  naturally  from  his  education  and  early 
association,  on  the  side  of  Tompkins,  and  his  zeal  was  quickened  by  personal  intercourse 
with  this  amiable  and  fascinating  man,  with  whom  to  have  an  interview  with  an  indi- 
vidual was  to  acquire  and  fix  a  friend.  Seward  was  appointed  to  address  the  vice-presi 
dent  on  his  visit  to  Schenectady  on  behalf  of  the  young  republicans  of  the  college. 
His  speech  was  so  much  above  the  common  run  of  political  harangues,  as  to  excite 
general  and  lasting  interest.  He  lived  in  the  remembrance  of  Daniel  D.  Tompkins,  un- 
til he  himself  ceased  to  live;  and  his  friends  will  recollect  the  fervent  kindness  with 
which  he  was  wont  to  recur  to  this  eloquent  and  generous  effort  of  his  youthful  cham- 
pioa" 

The  relations  of  young  Seward  with  Dr.  Nott,  the  venerable 
and  excellent  President  of  Union  College,  were  intimate  and 
cordial,  throughout  his  academic  course,  and  have  continued  to 
be  of  affectionate  confidence  to  the  present  time.  It  is  believed 
that  Mr.  Seward  has  seldom  acted  on  any  important  public  ques- 
tion, without  availing  himself  of  the  experience  and  sagacitv  of 
his  venerated  friend,  whose  counsels,  we  need  not  say,  have  al- 
ways been  on  the  side  of  nobleness  and  humanity.  Nor,  we  may 
add,  has  Mr.  Seward  failed  to  preserve  the  attachment  of  his 
early  friends.  The  companions  of  his  school  and  college  days, 
as  well  as  those  of  his  professional  life,  have  ever  been  among 
his  foremost  supporters,  as  a  public  man.  And  he  never  forsakes 


HIS  MARRIAGE— AUBURN.  xxi 

a  friend  or  a  cause,  that  he  has  once  espoused.  No  reproach  can 
shake  his  fidelity  to  objects,  of  whose  worth  he  has  become  per- 
suaded. 

Soon  after  taking  his  degree  at  Union  College,  Mr.  Seward 
entered  the  office  of  John  Anthon,  Esq.,  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
as  a  student  at  law.  He  carried  the  habits  of  early  rising  and  faith- 
ful application,  which  he  had  maintained  during  his  college  life, 
into  his  professional  studies.  He  thoroughly  mastered  every 
elementary  book  which  was  put  into  his  hands,  making  a  written 
analysis  of  its  contents.  Completing  his  legal  preparation  with 
John  Duer  and  Ogden  Hoft'man,  Esquires,  in  Goshen,  N.  Y.,  he 
was  admitted  to  the  bar  of  the  Supreme  Court  at  Utica  in  1822. 
For  six  months  previous  to  his  admission  he  had  been  associated  in 
practice  with  Mr.  Hoffman. 

In  January,  1823,  Mr.  Seward  took  up  his  residence  in  Auburn, 
and  formed  a  connexion  in  business  with  the  Hon.  Elijah  Miller, 
a  distinguished  member  of  the  legal  profession,  and  at  that  time 
first  Judge  of  Cayuga  county.  Judge  Miller,  who  had  acquired 
a  competency  in  a  large  and  successful  practice,  was  desirous  of 
retiring  from  active  professional  pursuits,  and  discovering  signs  of 
great  promise  in  young  Seward,  took  him  into  his  confidence,  and 
proved  a  devoted  and  efficient  friend. 

Mr.  Seward  in  1824  married  his  youngest  daughter,  Frances 
Adeline  Miller.  As  this  lady  is  still  living,  we  can  only  say  that  the 
connection  has  been  a  singularly  fortunate  one  in  all  respects. 
Four  children  compose  their  family ;  Augustus,  a  lieutenant  in  the 
U.  S.  Army,  Frederick,  a  promising  young  lawyer,  and  a  boy  and 
girl  yet  in  childhood.  One  daughter,  "  fondly  loved,"  was  there- 
fore, perhaps,  "  early  lost." 

The  town  of  Auburn,  which  Mr.  Seward  selected  as  a  residence, 
is  in  the  heart  of  one  of  the  most  fertile  and  delightful  regions  in 
central  New  York.  Its  growth  has  been  rapid  and  healthful. 
Within  a  few  years  the  primeval  forest  has  given  place  to  a  popu- 
lous city.  Its  inhabitants  are  distinguished  for  their  intelligence^ 
enterprise  and  refinement.  Free  from  the  pride  of  wealth  and  the 
pretensions  of  aristocracy,  they  present  an  attractive  example  of 
genuine  republican  equality.  In  some  degree  these  characteristics 
are  no  doubt  due  to  the  influence  of  Mr.  Seward  and  his  estimable 
family.  During  a  residence  of  more  than  thirty  years,  he  has  won 
the  unqualified  respect  and  confidence  of  his  townsmen.  Moving 


HIS  MILITARY  EXPERIENCE— AS  A  LAWYER. 

in  the  highest  circles  of  society,  he  has  never  avoided  friendly  in- 
tercourse with  the  most  obscure  and  lowly.  The  patron  of  strug- 
gling merit — cherishing  a  deep  interest  in  all  social  and  philan- 
thropic movements— watchful  to  aid  the  unfortunate  and  forsaken 
—and  ever  ready  to  devote  his  time,  his  talents,  and  his  pecuniary 
means  to  the  defence  of  the  wronged  and  oppressed  of  every  caste 
and  color— he  has  gained  the  lasting  gratitude  and  love  of  the  peo- 
ple with  whom,  for  over  a  quarter  of  a  century,  he  has  lived  as  a 
neighbor  and  fellow-citizen. 

Although  free  from  all  taint  of  sectarianism,  Mr.  Seward  cher- 
ishes a  strong  attachment  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church ;  of 
which  he  became  a  member  in  1837.  He  has  been  frequently 
called  to  attend  ecclesiastical  conventions  of  that  body.  With  his 
devotion  to  the  cause  of  public  improvement,  he  has  been  the 
patron  of  churches,  schools,  and  benevolent  institutions,  liberally 
contributing  his  money  for  their  support,  and  his  counsels  for  their 
direction. 

After  establishing  himself  in  Auburn,  Mr.  Seward  became  in- 
terested in  the  military  affairs  of  the  neighborhood,  and  was  soon 
honored  with  various  military  offices.  Accepting  the  colonelcy 
of  a  regiment,  he  acquired  wide  distinction  and  still  higher  pro- 
motion by  his  zeal  and  discipline.  Without  personal  military  am- 
bition, he  was  an  ardent  friend  of  a  well-regulated  militia  system 
for  the  preservation  of  order  and  the  defence  of  the  country.  He 
was  an  excellent  tactician,  and  an  accomplished  commander,  while 
his  winning  qualities  as  a  man  secured  the  friendship  of  all 
around  him,  who  were  engaged  in  the  same  department  of  pub- 
lic service. 

From  the  commencement  of  his  practice  as  a  lawyer,  Mr.  Seward 
was  always  in  the  habit  of  arguing  his  own  cases,  instead  of 
employing  older  counsellors,  as  is  often  done  by  young  advocates. 
In  the  management  of  a  case  he  sparingly  refers  to  the  authority  of 
recorded  decisions,  but  stating  the  general  principles  of  law  ap- 
plicable to  the  question,  and  arranging  the  facts  in  the  simplest 
order,  enforces  his  arguments  by  a  priori  reasonings,  and  shows  the 
basis  of  his  position  in  natural  equity.  As  a  professional  rule,  he 
gives  his  aid  to  a  weaker  party  against  a  stronger,  even  without 
compensation,  whether  his  client  be  right  or  wrong ;  but  if  a 
stronger  party  claims  his  services  against  a  weaker,  he  does  not 
engage  in  the  suit  without  a  clear  conviction  of  its  justice,  what- 


AS  A  LAWYER.  XXllJL 

ever  be  the  compensation.  During  the  -whole  course  of  his  prac- 
tice he  has  never  been  known  to  act  for  a  man  against  a  -woman  ; 
and  -was  never  but  once  engaged  in  a  cause  against  the  accused ; 
and  that  was  an  instance  of  extreme  outrage  by  a  man  upon  a 
young  woman. 

The  legal  career  of  Mr.  Seward  is  illustrated  with  no  less  justice 
than  vigor  in  the  following  sketch  of  his  early  professional  life, 
written  several  years  since  for  one  of  the  periodicals  of  the  day. 

"  The  practice  of  the  law  in  the  country  must  not  be  estimated  by  the  practice  in  the 
city.  Each  has  its  own  advantages  and  difficulties ;  it  is  the  peculiarity  of  the  former, 
that  it  at  once  brings  to  the  test,  and  to  the  public  view,  the  intrinsic  qualities  of  the 
man.  The  crowded  bar — the  long  deferred  opportunity — the  deference  to  age  and  ex- 
perience— the  overshadowing  reputation  of  the  seniors  of  the  profession,  and  the  innu- 
merable natural  or  conventional  impediments,  which  so  long  keep  back,  and  so  often 
depress  the  young  aspirant  with  us,  are  felt  in  a  veiy  mitigated  degree  in  the  interior 
The  candidate  for  distinction  is  there  summoned  at  once  to  the  arena  :  '  naked  steel  is 
around  Mm ;'  he  is  thrown  upon  his  OAvn  talents,  energies  and  resources,  and  he  stands 
and  falls  as  in  his  native  and  unaided  strength.  To  have  stood  this  trial  successfully, 
and  after  eleven  years  of  arduous  labors  to  have  risen  to  the  very  foremost  rank  of  his 
profession,  as  did  Mr.  Seward,  is  in  itself  an  unerring  indication  of  the  high  character  of 
the  object  of  these  remarks.  In  all  our  courts,  and  in  causes  of  every  description,  his 
talents  have  been  exercised  and  admired.  He  has  stood  forward  and  distinguished  him- 
self with  such  men  as  John  C.  Spencer,  Joshua  A.  Spencer,  Albert  EL  Tracy,  and  their 
contemporaries  of  the  West,  for  whom  competition  if  not  pre-eminence  may  be  challeng- 
ed with  the  Athletes  of  the  Bar  in  any  other  section  of  the  State,  or  of  the  country. 
Property,  liberty  and  life  have  been  committed  to  the  integrity  and  ability  of  '  this 
young  man  of  thirty -three,'  and  he  has  never  faltered  in  his  trust,  nor  failed  in  an  emer- 
gency, nor  left  unfulfilled  an  expectation." 

His  most  formidable  competitors  at  the  Auburn  Bar  during  the 
commencement  of  his  practice,  were  Hon.  John  M.  Hurlbut  and 
William  Brown,  Esqs.  Both  these  distinguished  men  were  accom- 
plished scholars,  erudite  jurists  and  powerful  advocates.  At  this 
time  they  were  in  the  dazzling  flush  of  professional  success.  The 
brilliancy  of  their  fame  threw  most  of  their  rivals  into  the  shade. 
Many  excellent  members  of  the  bar  had  been  deterred  by  their 
eminence  from  attempting  to  vie  with  them  in  the  courts.  But 
upon  a  man  like  Mr.  Seward  their  influence  was  of  a  contrary 
nature.  Their  intellectual  predominance  only  aroused  his  emula- 
lation ;  nor  did  he  suffer  by  the  comparison.  Possessing  a  native 
independence  of  mind,  he  was  early  accustomed  to  original  thought. 
This  habit  was  strengthened  by  severe  discipline.  Attaching  a  due 
value  to  the  suggestions  of  others,  he  still  relied  upon  himself. 
Connected  with  this  trait  of  character,  was  a  rigid  habit  of  indus- 


HIS  OPINIONS  ON  SLAVERY. 

try ;  he  studied  while  others  slept.  The  time  which  most  men  give 
to  recreation  he  devoted  to  strenuous  toil.  With  such  qualifica- 
tions, Mr.  Seward  soon  entered  upon  an  extensive  and  successful 
practice.  His  fame  grew  with  his  years,  until  he  fills  a  sphere 
which  is  surpassed  in  brilliancy  and  importance  by  that  of  few 
of  his  contemporaries,  incontestibly  ranking  with  the  first  lawyers 
of  the  Union. 

The  attention  of  Mr.  Seward  was  early  drawn  to  political  aifairs. 
His  father  was  an  ardent  champion  of  the  Jeffersonian  democracy. 
The  traditionary  instincts  and  early  prepossessions  of  the  son  were 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  same  principles.  Mr.  Seward  accord- 
dingly,  sympathised  with  the  democratic  party,  believing  that  it 
embodied  the  spirit  of  popular  freedom  to  a  greater  extent,  than 
any  other  party  of  the  day.  He  was  early  undeceived  by  experience. 
Discovering  that  under  the  pretence  of  democracy  the  leaders  of 
the  party  were  bent  on  personal  interests,  irrespective  of  the  rights 
of  humanity  and  the  public  good,  he  left  them  at  once  and  forever. 
He  has  attached  but  slight  importance  to  mere  party  names.  The 
diffusion  of  genuine  republican  sentiments  among  the  people,  and 
their  practical  realization  in  the  institutions  and  laws  of  his  coun- 
try, have  been  the  leading  objects  of  his  political  life. 

Mr.  Seward  first  had  occasion  to  express  his  convictions  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  during  the  protracted  struggle  on  the  admission 
of  Missouri  into  the  Union.  He  perceived,  at  that  early  period, 
the  subserviency  to  Southern  influence  and  dictation,  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  democratic  party  in  the  state  of  New  York.  From 
that  day  to  the  present  his  life  has  been  devoted  to  the  principles 
of  liberty.  In  his  view,  freedom  is  national  and  slavery  sectional. 
With  him  the  purpose  of  the  Union  is  to  establish  the  blessings  of 
equality,  justice  and  humanity ;  not  to  enlarge  the  area  of  bondage 
and  oppression.  His  hostility  to  slavery  has  not  been  the  result  of 
policy,  but  of  principle — of  the  strongest  conviction  of  its  inherent 
injustice,  and  its  tendency  to  corrupt  and  destroy  the  noblest  in- 
stitutions of  the  country.  His  rule  of  action  on  the  subject  has 
been  uniform  from  the  commencement  of  his  political  career. 
He  has  never  suffered  the  fear  of  consequences  to  silence  his  voice 
in  defence  of  freedom,  when  any  practical  benefit  was  at  stake  ; 
but  he  has  strictly  avoided  every  act  that  was  adapted  to  inflict  a 
needless  wound  upon  an  opponent,  or  to  foment  an  unprofitable 
excitement. 


HIS  ENTRANCE  UPON  POLITICS.  XXV 

In  his  measures  with  regard  to  slavery,  Mr.  Seward  has  been  no 
fanatic.  Detesting  the  institution,  he  has  waged  against  it  an 
honorable  warfare.  But  he  has  refrained,  with  scrupulous  care, 
from  infringing  on  the  constitutional  rights  of  slave  holders,  or 
depriving  them  of  any  privilege  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  law. 
This  is  the  extent  of  his  concessions.  He  refuses  to  accord  any 
advantage  beyond  legal  enactment  to  an  institution  which  violates 
the  first  principles  of  natural  right. 

His  position  on  this  subject  was  clearly  defined  in  his  California 
speech.* 

"  I  feel  assured  that  slavery  must  give  way,  and  will  give  way,  to  the  salutary  in- 
structions of  economy,  and  to  the  ripening  influences  of  humanity ;  that  emancipation  is 
inevitable,  and  is  near ;  that  it  may  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  and  that  whether  it  be 
peaceful  or  violent  depends  upon  the  question  whether  it  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  that 
all  measures  which  fortify  slavery  or  extend  it,  tend  to  the  consummation  of  violence ; 
all  that  check  its  extension  and  abate  its  strength,  tend  to  its  peaceful  extirpation.  But 
I  will  adopt  none  but  lawful,  constitutional,  and  peaceful  means,  to  secure  even  that 
end ;  and  none  such  can  I  or  will  I  forego.  Nor  do  I  know  any  important  or  responsi- 
ble political  body  that  proposes  to  do  more  than  this.  No  free  state  claims  to  extend 
its  legislation  into  a  slave  state.  None  claims  that  Congress  shall  usurp  power  to  abolish 
slavery  in  the  slave  states.  None  claims  that  any  violent,  unconstitutional  or  unlawful 
measure  shall  be  embraced.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  offer  no  scheme  or  plan  for 
the  adoption  of  the  slave  states,  with  the  assent  and  co-operation  of  Congress,  it  is  only 
because  the  slave  states  are  unwilling  as  yet  to  receive  such  suggestions,  or  even  to  en- 
tertain the  question  of  emancipation  in  any  form." 

Mr.  Seward's  first  public  action  of  a  political  character  was  in 
1824.  In  October  of  that  year,  he  drew  up  the  Address  of  the 
Republican  Convention  of  Cayuga  County  to  the  people. f  In 
this  document,  he  gave  a  brief  history  of  the  origin  and  designs  of 
the  Albany  regency — a  clique  of  political  leaders,  which  once 
exerted  a  great  and  most  injurious  influence  in  the  state  of  New 
York.  He  exposed  its  system  of  machinery — its  opposition  to 
the  electoral  law,  placing  the  appointment  of  presidential  elec- 
tors in  the  hands  of  the  people,  although  solemnly  pledged  to 
its  support — and  its  intrigues  to  prevent  the  election  of  John 
Quincy  Adams  to  the  presidency,  and  to  secure  the  ultimate 
election  of  Martin  Yan  Buren.  The  opposition  to  the  Albany 
regency,  thus  boldly  commenced  by  the  young  politician,  was 
finally  crowned  with  complete  success.  The  sources  of  its  influ- 
ence were  destroyed,  and  the  power,  which  had  been  centralized 
in  its  organization,  was  restored  to  the  possession  of  the  people. 

*See  Vol.  I.  p.  G1.  f  See   VoL  III,  p.   335. 


XXT1  PRESIDENT  OF  A  YOUNG  MEN'S   CONVENTION. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1825,  Mr.  Seward  delivered  an  anniver- 
sary oration  at  Auburn.*  The  Missouri  Compromise  and  the 
Tariff  of  1824  had  recently  elicited  threats  of  nullification  at 
the  south.  In  this  oration,  Mr.  Seward  took  the  same  position 
on  several  important  political  questions,  which  he  has  maintained 
to  the  present  day.  He  argued  the  capacity  of  the  government 
for  the  extension  of  empire,  asserting  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union  on  the  same  grounds  that  have  been  advanced  in  his 
later  productions.  Announcing  his  devotion  to  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  emancipation,  he  insisted  that  the  United  States  should 
be  a  "  city  of  refuge  "  for  the  oppressed  and  down-trodden  of 
every  nation. 

In  1826  and  1827,  the  Greek  revolution  awakened  a  general 
sympathy  in  the  United  States.  A  meeting  of  citizens  of  Auburn 
was  held  in  February,  1827,  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  aid  to 
the  struggling  Greeks.  Mr.  Seward  was  invited  to  deliver  a  speech 
on  this  occasion.f  The  subject  was  congenial  to  his  feelings,  and 
he  gladly  consented  to  the  request.  With  characteristic  eloquence, 
he  defended  the  cause  of  liberty  in  other  lands — asserting  its 
claims  on  American  sympathy,  in  the  same  line  of  argument 
which  he  afterwards  reproduced  in  behalf  of  Ireland  and  Hun- 
gary. His  vigorous  and  glowing  appeal  was  met  by  the  people 
to  whom  it  was  addressed  with  a  munificent  liberality  which  was 
elsewhere  without  a  parallel. 

In  July,  1828,  Mr.  Seward  was  invited  by  the  members  of  the 
Adelphic  Society  of  Union  College,  to  deliver  a  eulogy  on  David 
Berdan,^:  a  member  of  the  society,  who  died  on  his  passage  from 
London  to  Boston,  July  20,  1827.  It  was  a  sincere  and  eloquent 
tribute  to  the  memory  of  an  esteemed  companion  and  friend. 
The  monument  erected  to  young  Berdan,  still  forms  an  interest- 
ing object  to  those  who  visit  the  college  grounds  at  Schenectady. 
The  year  1828  is  distinguished  as  the  period  when  the  young 
men  of  our  country  first  made  an  effort  to  exert  a  personal  influ- 
ence on  national  politics.  A  convention  of  the  young  men  of 
Kew  York  in  favor  of  the  re-election  of  John  Quincy  Adams  to 
the  presidency  was  held  at  Utica,  on  the  12th  of  August.  It  was 
one  of  the  largest  political  conventions  ever  assembled  in  the 
Empire  state.  Four  hundred  delegates,  in  the  flower  and  fresh- 
ness of  youth,  were  present  at  the  session,  which  continued  for 

*  See  VoL  III,  p.   193.  f  See  VoL  III,  p.  197.  $  See  YoL  III,  p.  117. 


NOMINATED  FOR  THE  STATE  SENATE.  XXV11 

several  days.  Mr.  Seward  was  called  to  preside  over  its  deliber- 
ations. He  fulfilled  the  duties  of  the  office  with  marked  ability. 
Though  only  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  he  exhibited  a  dignity, 
decision  and  courtesy  which  would  have  done  honor  to  an  expe- 
rienced statesman.  He  left  a  singularly  favorable  impression  on 
the  minds  of  his  colleagues,  who,  with  scarcely  an  exception, 
have  adhered  to  the  political  principles  of  that  convention,  until 
the  present  time.  Many  of  the  most  prominent  men  in  New 
York  date  their  interest  in  politics  from  the  Young  Men's  State 
Convention,  and  have  since  exerted  an  influence  which  led  to  a 
decisive  change  in  the  policy  and  relation  of  parties  in  the  sate. 

The  election  of  General  Jackson  to  the  presidency  in  1828  dis- 
solved the  National  Republican  Party  in  Western  New  York, 
with  which  Mr.  Seward,  as  an  ardent  supporter  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  had  been  identified.  Meantime,  the  anti-masonic  party 
had  risen  into  consequence,  and  though  of  local  origin,  and  acting 
in  a  limited  field,  for  several  years,  it  formed  the  only  opposition 
in  Western  New  York  to  the  Albany  regency  and  the  Jackson 
administration.  In  1828,  this  party  tendered  a  nomination  as 
member  of  Congress  to  Mr.  Seward,  which  he  declined,  on  ac- 
count of  the  obligation  that  he  felt  to  support  the  national  re- 
publican party.  On  the  overthrow  of  the  latter  party,  Mr.  Seward 
and  his  friends,  sympathizing  with  the  citizens  who  were  engaged 
in  vindicating  the  supremacy  of  the  laws,  naturally  united  with 
the  anti-masons,  as  affording  the  best  position  for  a  successful  re- 
sistance of  the  national  and  state  administrations.  Among  his 
political  associates  at  that  time,  were  Frederic  Whittlesey,  Thurlow 
Weed,  Francis  Granger,  John  C.  Spencer,  Millard  Fillmore, 
and  other  distinguished  public  men  of  the  present  day. 

In  1830,  Mr.  Seward  was  nominated  by  the  anti-masonic  party 
as  a  candidate  for  the  state  Senate,  from  the  seventh  district, 
comprising,  at  that  time,  the  counties  of  Onondaga,  Cayuga, 
Cortland,  Seneca,  Ontario,  Wayne,  and  Yates.  The  nomination 
was  unexpected,  but  he  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  decline  it.  Al- 
though the  district  had  given  a  large  Jackson  majority  the  pre- 
ceding year,  and  the  anti-masonic  candidate  for  governor,  Francis 
Granger,  was  defeated,  at  the  same  election,  by  a  majority  of 
8000,  Mr.  Seward  was  elected  to  the  Senate  by  the  handsome 
majority  of  2000  votes.  In  Cayuga  county,  where  he  resided, 
the  democratic  party  had  long  enjoyed  a  decided  ascendancy, 


xxviii  MR.   SEWARD  IN  THE  SENATE. 

but  still  a  majority  of  the  senatorial  votes  were  cast  for  Mr. 
Seward. 

Mr.  Seward  took  his  seat  in  the  state  Senate,  in  January,  1831. 
This  was  his  first  election  to  civil  office.  He  had  always  re- 
garded the  career  of  a  statesman,  as  affording  scope  for  the 
accomplishment  of  noble  deeds  in  behalf  of  freedom  and  hu- 
manity. Hence,  he  cheerfully  exchanged  the  routine  of  legal 
practice  for  the  functions  of  the  legislator.  He  was,  probably, 
the  youngest  member  that  ever  entered  the  New  York  Senate,  hav- 
ing not  yet  completed  his  twenty-ninth  year.  In  spite  of  his  youth, 
he  soon  attained  an  honorable  distinction  among  his  colleagues. 
With  an  almost  juvenile  ardor  of  temperament,  inspired  with  a 
generous  ambition,  cherishing  the  deepest  sentiments  of  patriotism 
and  philanthropy,  a  champion  of  liberty  and  popular  rights,  des- 
pising the  vulgar  arts  of  hackneyed  politicians,  and  filled  with  an 
enthusiastic  faith  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  truth  and  justice, — 
Mr.  Seward  came  into  the  Senate  of  his  native  state,  a  new  man, 
fresh  from  the  living  masses  of  the  people,  and  breathed  over 
that  body  a  spirit  of  vitality  and  progress,  of  which  the  influence 
remains  to  the  present  day.  His  course  at  once  assumed  the  cha- 
racter of  boldness  and  originality  which  it  still  sustains.  It  was 
not  shaped  in  accordance  with  traditional  prescriptions,  but  fol- 
lowing the  impulses  of  an  inventive  mind,  sought  to  develope 
new  measures  of  public  good,  and  larger  enfranchisements  for  the 
people. 

The  circumstances,  however,  under  which  Mr.  Seward  entered  the 
Senate  were  adapted  to  discourage  an  ingenuous  and  earnest  spirit. 
The  Jackson  party  were  in  possession  of  unlimited  sway.  Wield- 
ing the  vast  patronage  of  the  federal  and  state  governments,  their 
influence  was  as  extensive  as  it  was  pernicious.  The  Albany  re- 
gency, knit  into  a  unit  by  the  passion  for  office  and  its  attending 
emoluments,  ruled  the  state  with  an  iron  rod.  With  the  appoint- 
ing power,  to  a  great  degree,  in  their  hands— controlling  the  cur- 
rency, by  their  connexion  with  the  banks— retaining  well-disci- 
plined emissaries  in  every  county  and  town  to  carry  their  plans 
into  effect — this  central  junta  had  but  to  touch  the  springs  at  Al- 
bany, to  produce  any  desired  movement  in  the  remotest  corner  of 
the  state.  A  large  majority  of  the  Legislature  were  the  supple 
tools  of  the  regency,  ready  to  enact  such  measures,  as  might  be 
deemed  necessary  to  maintain  the  preponderance  already  secured. 


SPEECHES   IN  THE  SENATE.  XXIX 

Mr.  Seward  threw  himself  fearlessly  into  the  opposition.  He 
soon  became  its  acknowledged  leader.  Among  the  debates  in 
which  he  took  a  prominent  part,  were  those  relating  to  internal 
improvements  and  universal  education.  He  labored  strenuously 
in  behalf  of  the  common  school  system.  He  urged  the  abolition 
of  imprisonment  for  debt,  the  melioration  of  prison  discipline, 
and  the  establishment  of  a  separate  penitentiary  for  female  con- 
victs. The  construction  of  the  Chenango  Canal  received  his  effi- 
cient support.  He  opposed  the  transfer  of  the  salt  duties  from 
the  canal  fund  to  the  general  fund,  but  voted  for  their  reduction. 
He  sustained  the  bill  for  making  the  stockholders  in  commercial 
companies  personally  liable,  but  not  in  manufacturing  companies. 
He  opposed  increasing  the  salaries  of  the  higher  judicial  officers, 
and  introduced  important  amendments  of  the  law  in  relation  to 
surrogates.  But  few  bank  charters  obtained  his  vote.  Gov. 
Marcy's  great  loan  law*  met  with  his  vehement  opposition.  He 
made  a  powerful  speech  against  executive  interference  with  the 
United  States  Bank,  and  against  the  removal  of  the  deposits  ;f 
while  he  supported  Gen.  Jackson's  measure  in  regard  to  southern 
nullification.  Mr.  Seward  was  one  of  the  earliest  friends  of  the 
New  York  and  Erie  Railroad  $  lending  it  his  aid  in  all  its  vi- 
cissitudes, until  it  was  at  length  brought  to  a  triumphant  com- 
pletion. 

Mr.  Seward's  first  parliamentary  effort  was  his  speech  on 
the  Militia  Bill,  §  delivered  on  the  7th  of  Feb.,  1831.  In  this 
speech,  he  proposed  a  thorough  revision  of  the  militia  system, 
substituting  volunteer  uniformed  companies  for  the  general  per- 
formance of  military  duty.  His  views  were  characterized  by  the 
far-reaching  wisdom,  the  lively  sense  of  the  progressive  wants  of 
the  age,  which  have  often  placed  him  in  advance  of  his  compeers, 
as  an  advocate  of  beneficent  reforms.  At  first,  his  suggestions 
failed  to  command  assent ;  but  they  awakened  discussion ;  and 
nearly  twenty  years  afterward  were  adopted  in  substance. 

In  March  of  the  same  year,  a  bill  was  introduced  authorizing 
an  appropriation  to  collect  materials  for  a  Colonial  History  of  New 
irork.  It  was  supported  by  Mr.  Seward,  in  a  brief  but  earnest 
speech.  He  maintained  that  the  official  documents,  relating  to 
the  early  history  of  the  state,  contained  in  the  archives  of  several 

*  See  Vol.  I,  p.  37.  f  See  Vol.  I,  p.  14. 

\  Sec  Speeches  and  Addresses  in  Vol.  Ill,  p.  306.    §  See  VoL  I,  p.  1. 


XXX  ADDRESS   OF  THE  MINORITY  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

European  governments,  especially  of  Great  Britain,  Holland, 
and  France,  should  be  collected  by  competent  agents  and  embo- 
died in  a  Colonial  History.  His  plan  was  adopted,  and  subse- 
quently carried  into  effect  during  his  administration  as  governor. 
The  result  was  the  publication  of  four  large  volumes  of  the  Docu- 
mentary History  of  Xew  York,  which  appeared  during  the  admin- 
istration of  his  successors,  Governors  Fish  and  Hunt. 

The  next  important  speech  of  Mr.  Seward  was  on  the  election 
of  mayor  of  the  city  of  ]S"ew  York.*  This  was  delivered 
on  the  23d  of  April.  Under  the  first  constitution  the  mayors  and 
recorders  of  cities  were  chosen  by  the  Council  of  Appointment  at 
Albany.  Under  the  new  constitution  of  1821,  mayors  were  chosen 
by  the  Common  Council,  and  recorders  were  appointed  by  the 
Governor  and  Senate.  The  new  charter  of  J^ew  York  gave  the 
mayor  a  veto  on  the  acts  of  the  Common  Council.  A  petition  was 
presented  to  the  Legislature  by  the  citizens  for  a  change  in  the 
Constitution,  giving  the  election  of  mayor  directly  to  the  people. 
This  was  opposed  by  the  dominant  party.  They  brought  in  a 
resolution  providing  that  mayors  should  be  chosen  in  such  man- 
ner as  the  Legislature  should  direct.  Mr.  Seward  took  decided 
ground  in  favor  of  the  New  York  petition.  Arguing  on  the  merits 
of  the  question,  he  contended  that  not  only  in  New  York,  but  in 
all  cities,  the  mayors  should  be  chosen  by  the  people.  This  was 
in  accordance  with  his  democratic  principles,  which  have  always 
led  him  to  claim  the  largest  extent  of  privilege  for  the  people. 
His  views  were  finally  adopted  in  the  legislature  of  the  state. 

During  the  same  session  he  materially  aided  the  bill  for  the  abo- 
lition of  imprisonment  for  debt,  which  at  length  passed  ;  while  the 
measure  was  fully  completed,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  under 
his  subsequent  administration. 

At  the  close  of  the  session  Mr.  Seward  was  appointed  to  draw 
up  the  Address  to  the  People  of  the  Minority  of  the  Legislature. 
In  this  addressf  he  reviewed  the  financial  condition  of  the 
state,  and  exposed  the  mismanagement  of  the  treasury.  He 
showed  the  radical  defects  of  the  safety  fund  system,  which 
under  partisan  control  gave  the  government  of  the  state  to  the 
Albany  regency.  This  monopoly  was  overthrown  by  the  whigs, 
on  their  accession  to  power  in  1837,  and  the  freedom  of  banking, 
under  suitable  safe-guards,  permitted  to  all  citizens.  The  contro- 
*  See  VoL  L  p.  10.  f  See  Vol.  IIL  p.  338. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  UNITED  STATES  BANK.  XXXI 

versy  between  New  York  and  New  Jersey  was  at  that  time  a 
source  of  much  excitement.  The  address  exposed  the  conduct 
of  the  Executive,  showing  that  it  amounted  to  virtual  nullifica- 
tion. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  Mr.  Seward  delivered  an  an- 
niversary oration""  before  the  citizens  of  Syracuse.  He  took 
for  his  subject,  The  Prospects  of  the  United  States.  In  a 
strain  of  masculine  eloquence,  he  defended  the  American  people 
against  the  charge  of  national  vanity  and  presumption,  and  uttered 
a  stirring  appeal  for  the  cultivation  of  public  virtue  and  the  spirit 
of  devotion  to  the  Union. 

The  meeting  of  the  Legislature  in  1832  again  found  Mr.  Seward 
at  his  post.  He  entered,  with  his  habitual  zeal,  upon  the  great 
questions  which  then  agitated  the  public  mind.  Relying  upon  the 
soundness  of  his  principles,  he  boldly  maintained  the  conflict 
against  a  majority  so  overwhelming,  that  to  a  less  ardent  temper- 
ament than  his  own,  opposition  would  have  seemed  hopeless. 

A  resolution  was  brought  into  the  Senate,  at  the  commencement 
of  the  session,  against  renewing  the  charter  of  the  United  States 
Bank.  Soon  after  a  substitute  was  proposed,  declaring  the 
necessity  of  a  national  bank  for  the  collection  of  the  public  reve- 
nue and  the  preservation  of  a  sound  and  uniform  currency.  On 
the  31st  of  January  Mr.  Seward  delivered  a  speech  in  support  of 
the  proposed  substitute.  This  was  his  first  elaborate  effort  in  the 
Legislature.  Having  given  a  minute  history  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  he  discussed  the  fiscal  system  of  the  government, 
and  exposed  the  fallacy  of  Gen.  Jackson's  objections  to  the  renewal 
of  the  Bank  charter.  His  line  of  argument  was  substantially  the 
same  as  that  pursued  by  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Webster  in  the  United 
States  Senate.  His  speech  produced  a  marked  sensation  through- 
out the  country.  The  question  was  new  and  exciting — it  took 
strong  hold  of  public  feeling,  and  great  satisfaction  was  expressed 
by  the  opponents  of  the  Federal  administration  on  the  appearance  of 
this  powerful  appeal  in  its  favor.  Combined  with  the  discussions  on 
internal  improvements  and  state  banks,  the  speech  of  Mr.  Seward 
and  that  of  Mr.  Maynard  on  the  same  subject,  had  the  effect  of 
concentrating  the  opposition  to  the  Albany  regency  and  Jackson's 
administration,  in  an  organized  system.  This  was  the  origin  of  the 

*  See  Vol.  III.  p.  200. 


XXxii  SEPARATE  PRISON   FOR  FEMALES. 

political  body,  which  two  years  afterwards  took  the  name  of  the 
Whig  Party. 

On  the  20th  of  March,  the  question  came  up  on  the  establish- 
ment of  a  separate  penitentiary  for  female  convicts.  In  his 
speech  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Seward  took  the  broadest  grounds  of 
Christian  philanthropy.  He  argued  that  the  imprisonment  of 
women  in  penitentiaries  adapted  only  to  the  other  sex,  and  under 
the  exclusive  management  of  men,  was  inhuman,  and  at  war  with 
the  benevolent  spirit  of  the  age.  He  showed  the  benefits  which 
the  convicts  would  derive  from  the  kind  and  judicious  care  of  per- 
sons of  their  own  sex.  The  prison,  he  maintained,  should  be  made 
a  house  of  refuge,  rather  than  a  place  of  punishment, -where  its 
unfortunate  inmates  might  find  protection  from  the  wrongs  they 
had  received,  in  most  cases  at  the  hands  of  men — where  they  might 
receive  instruction  and  guidance — be  inspired  with  new  hopes — 
and  prepared  to  return  to  society  with  the  prospect  of  honor  and 
happiness.  The  measure,  which  was  carried,  owed  its  success  to 
the  exertions  of  Mr.  Seward,  greatly  aided,  however,  by  the  effi- 
cient co-operation  of  Mr.  McDonald  of  Westchester  county. 

In  a  speech  during  this  session  on  granting  a  charter  to'  a  Whal- 
ing company,  Mr.  Seward  made  a  vigorous  attack  on  the  tendency 
of  legislation  to  corporate  monopolies  for  banking,  canals,  rail- 
roads, and  similar  purposes.  His  efforts  were  not  supported,  and 
for  a  time  proved  unavailing.  But  the  good  seed  has  since 
ripened.  The  present  system  of  opening  every  branch  of  business 
to  voluntary  association,  without  legislative  interference,  is  the  fruit 
of  the  principle  he  then  maintained,  and  is  an  ample  vindication 
of  their  soundness  and  utility. 

At  the  close  of  the  session  of  1832,  Mr.  Seward  was  again  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  the  Address  of  the  Minority  of  the  Legislature 
to  their  constituents.  In  this  document  he  resumed  the  discussion 
of  the  fiscal  affairs  of  the  state,  showing  the  abuses  of  the  admin- 
istration in  management  of  the  public  funds  for  political  purposes, 
exposing  the  misconduct  of  the  Legislature  in  the  incorporation  of 
banking  monopolies,  and  predicting  the  ruin  of  the  banks  from 
the  policy  pursued.  His  prophecy  was  in  due  time  fulfilled. 

In  the  presidential  campaign  of  1832,  Mr.  Seward  gave  hi.- 
support  to  the  electors  who  were  to  vote  for  either  Mr.  WIET  or  Mr. 
CLAY  as  their  vote  should  prove  effective.  He  has  since  repeatedly 
supported  Mr.  Clay  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  although 


TRA.VELS  IN  EUROPE.  XXxiii 

it  is  known  that  he  always  foresaw  his  defeat,  and  it  is  there- 
fore questionable  whether  that  eminent  statesman  was  ever  his 
first  choice. 

At  the  legislative  session  for  this  year,  Mr.  Seward  took  a  still 
more  prominent  share  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate.  The 
nomination  of  Mr.  Tallmadge,  then  a  member  of  the  Senate,  to  the 
office  of  United  States  Senator,  called  forth  the  discussion  of  an 
important  constitutional  question.  A  clause  in  the  state  Consti- 
tution prohibited  any  member  of  the  Legislature  from  receiving 
office  at  the  hands  of  that  body,  during  the  term  for  which 
he  was  elected.  The  attorney  general,  to  whom  the  question  of 
eligibility  had  been  submitted,  decided  in  favor  of  Mr.  Tallmadge. 
This  decision  was  controverted  by  Mr.  Seward  in  a  speech  of  re- 
markable power  of  logic  and  eloquence.  lie  was  overruled  by  a 
strictly  party  vote  ;  but  one  can  hardly  read  his  speech  without 
being  convinced  that  the  appointment,  made  for  temporary  politi- 
cal purposes,  was  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 

The  nullification  movements  in  the  South  were  brought  before 
the  attention  of  the  Senate  in  February,  1833.  On  the  16th  of 
that  month  Mr.  Seward  introduced  a  series  of  resolutions,  main- 
taining that  Congress  should  be  governed  by  a  strict  construction 
of  the  powers  entrusted  to  the  general  government.  In  his  speech 
sustaining  the  resolutions  he  rebuked  the  democratic  party  in  the 
state  for  their  disposition  to  tamper  with  the  principles  of  nulli- 
fication, while  professing  to  support  Gen.  Jackson's  measures, 
which  threatened  the  nullifiers  with  the  penalty  of  treason. 

During  this  session  Mr.  Seward  took  part  in  the  discussions  on 
the  navigation  of  the  Hudson,  and  on  the  increase  of  Judicial 
salaries. 

On  the  1st  of  June,  1833,  Mr.  Seward  sailed  for  Europe  in  com- 
pany with  his  father.  They  made  a  rapid  tour  through  parts  of 
the  United  Kingdom,  Holland,  Germany,  Switzerland,  Sardinia 
and  France.  During  his  absence  he  wrote  home  a  series  of 
letters*  describing  the  countries  that  he  visited,  which  were 
afterwards  published  anonymously  in  the  Albany  Evening  Jour- 
nal. These  letters  exhibit  a  refined  taste,  great  acuteness  of  obser- 
vation, and  a  genial  sympathy  with  the  grand  and  beautiful  in 
nature.  The  reputation  of  the  writer  was  enhanced  by  the  avowal 
of  their  authorship. 

*  See  Vol.  III. 
VOL.  I.— c. 


XXXIV  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

Mr.  Seward  returned  from  his  European  tour  in  season  to  take 
his  seat  in  the  Senate,  at  the  opening  of  the  session  of  1834.  Tho 
public  attention  was  occupied  with  important  questions  both  of 
national  and  of  state  politics.  In  the  controversy  relating  to  the 
United  States  Bank,  Mr.  Seward  took  a  leading  part,  and  by  his 
vigorous  and  eloquent  appeals  produced  a  strong  impression  upon 
the  public  mind. 

The  removal  of  the  deposits  by  Gen.  Jackson  took  place  in 
Sept.  1833.  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  then  vice  president,  and  in  order 
to  promote  his  claims  to  the  presidency,  it  was  deemed  essential 
to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  ISfew  York  Legislature  for  the  mea- 
sures of  Gen.  Jackson.  Joint  resolutions  were  accordingly  intro- 
duced by  the  administration  party  in  January,  1834,  approving  the 
removal  of  the  deposits,  instructing  the  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives in  Congress  to  oppose  the  renewal  of  the  bank  charter,  and 
ascribing  the  financial  distress  of  the  country  to  4he  influence  of 
that  institution.  These  resolutions  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  large 
majority.  Not  a  voice  was  raised  in  opposition  to  them.  In  the 
Senate,  however,  they  met  with  a  different  reception.  "With  a 
deep  conviction  of  duty,  and  in  spite  of  the  remonstrance  of  his 
friends,  Mr.  Seward  broke  the  ominous  silence,  and  in  an 
elaborate  speech*  opposed  the  passage  of  the  resolutions. 
This  speech,  which  was,  on  the  whole,  the  most  powerful  effort  of 
his  intellect  and  legislative  experience  during  his  career  in  the 
New  York  Senate,  occupied  a  part  of  two  days  in  the  delivery. 
It  was  a  forcible  and  conclusive  in  argument,  pointed  and  brilliant 
in  expression,  and  adorned  with  the  appropriate  embellishments 
of  historical  and  classic  illustration.  Its  effect,  not  only  on  the 
Senate,  but  throughout  the  state,  was  of  so  decided  a  character, 
that  several  senators  of  the  opposite  party  attempted  to  set  aside 
its  influence  by  formal  replies.  This  called  forth  Mr.  Seward  in 
a  rejoinder,  on  the  24th  of  January,  on  which  occasion  he  indulged 
in  a  severity  of  remark  to  which  he  was  not  accustomed,  and  for 
the  only  time  in  his  public  life,  noticed  the  personal  attacks  of 
which  he  had  been  made  the  subject. 

The  evils  which  Mr.  Seward  had  predicted  in  consequence  of 
the  removal  of  the  deposits,  spread  over  the  country  with  fearful 
rapidity.  Before  the  close  of  the  session,  a  severe  financial 

*  See  VoL  I.  p.  H. 


THE  COURT  OF  ERRORS.  XXXV 

pressure  was  felt  everywhere.  Commencing  among  the  mercan- 
tile classes,  it  soon  extended  to  every  department  of  business  and 
industry.  Public  meetings  were  called  to  express  the  prevailing 
dissatisfaction,  and  to  avert  further  calamity.  Committees  were 
appointed  to  implore  relief  of  the  President  and  Congress.  As  a 
suitable  measure  to  alleviate  the  general  pecuniary  distress,  Gov. 
Marcy  recommended  the  issue  of  six  millions  of  stock,  to  be  sold 
on  account  of  the  state.  A  bill  to  this  effect  was  introduced  into 
the  legislature,  providing  that  four  millions  of  the  avails  of  this 
stock  should  be  loaned  to  the  safety  fund  banks,  and  the  remain- 
der to  individuals,  on  bond  and  mortgage.  Mr.  Seward  denounced 
the  measure  in  an  admirable  speech,*  delivered  on  the  10th  of 
April,  1834.  The  design  of  the  bill  was  to  operate  favorably  for 
the  administration  at  the  ensuing  fall  election.  This  resulted  in 
the  re-election  of  Gov.  Marcy  ;  no  stock  wTas  issued,  and  the  mea- 
sure, having  accomplished  its  purpose,  passed  into  oblivion. 

The  last  speech  of  Mr.  Seward  in  the  Senate  related  to  the 
chartered  rights  of  the  city  of  Albany.  It  was  a  temperate  and 
logical  performance,  but  failed  to  prevent  the  passage  of  a  law, 
which  in  his  view,  was  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  city.  At 
the  close  of  the  session,  he'  was  for  the  third  time  designated  to 
draw  up  the  usual  addressf  of  the  minority  of  the  legislature  to 
the  people  of  the  state.  The  two  great  parties  on  national  and 
state  questions  were  now  fully  organized.  A  general  trial  of 
strength  was  to  be  made  in  the  approaching  election.  The  result 
of  this  struggle  would  indicate  the  probable  issue  of  the  presiden- 
tial election  which  was  to  take  place  in  1836.  The  address,  ac- 
cordingly, went  into  a  thorough  exposition  and  defence  of  the 
whig  policy,  and  with  this  document,  were  concluded  the  services 
of  Mr.  Seward  in  the  Legislature  of  New  York. 

The  Court  of  Errors,  which  was  the  court  of  final  appeal  in 
New  York,  from  17Y5  to  1846,  was  an  institution  copied  from  the 
English  House  of  Lords.  It  consisted  of  the  Chancellor,  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  members  of  the  Senate. 
In  the  case  of  appeals  from  chancery,  the  Chancellor  gave  his 
reasons  for  the  decree  he  had  made,  but  did  not  vote.  In  acting 
on  judgments  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Judges  explained  the 
grounds  of  their  decision,  but  did  not  vote.  Mr.  Seward,  although 
at  that  time  the  youngest  member  of  the  court,  took  a  leading 
*  See  VoL  I,  p.  37.  f  See  VoL  III,  p.  349. 


XXXvi  DOMINATION  FOR  GOVERNOR. 

part  in  its  proceedings.  His  course  was  distinguished  for  its  in- 
dependence, although  he  never  forgot  the  courtesy  due  to  his 
seniors.  With  remarkable  power  of  analysis  and  accuracy  of  re- 
search, he  made  himself  master  of  every  case,  that  was  presented 
for  decision.  An  opinion  pronounced  by  him  in  the  case  of  Parks  vs. 
Jackson  affords  an  illustration  of  his  character  as  a  judge.  In 
that  case,*  a  technical  rule  had  been  applied  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  deprive  tenants  of  valuable  estates 
for  which  they  had  contracted  and  paid  in  good  faith.  The  rea- 
sons for  this  decision  were  assigned  by  Mr.  Justice  kelson,  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  afterwards  Chief  Justice,  and  now  a  Judge  of 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  Chancellor  "Wai worth  followed 
in  an  opinion,  in  which  he  defended  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  Mr.  Seward  then  rose  and  delivered  an  adverse  opinion, 
and  on  the  question  being  taken  on  reversing  the  judgment,  all 
the  members  of  the  court,  with  the  exception  of  the  Chancellor, 
voted  in  the  affirmative.  This  seems  to  have  been  a  case  where 
the  technicalities  of  the  law  came  in  conflict  with  justice.  Mr. 
Seward,  prompted  by  a  noble  sentiment  of  right,  vindicated  the 
claims  of  justice,  against  the  arbitrary  rules  of  law,  carrying  the 
whole  court  with  him,  in  spite  of  their  previous  intentions. 

On  the  16th  of  July,  1834,  Mr.  Seward  delivered  a  eulogyf  on 
the  life  and  character  of  Lafayette,  before  the  citizens  of  Auburn. 
This  was  a  chaste  and  beautiful  production.  It  presented  an  ad- 
mirable analysis  of  the  character  of  Lafayette,  with  a  discrimina- 
ting review  of  the  principles  of  the  American  Eevolution,  and  of 
the  successive  phases  of  French  politics  from  the  death  of  Louis 
XYI.  An  account  of  a  recent  personal  conversation  between  Mr. 
Seward  and  Lafayette,  added  greatly  to  the  interest  of  the  dis- 
course. 

As  the  autumn  of  183-i  approached,  when  the  election  of  Gov- 
ernor was  to  be  made  by  the  people,  the  whig  party  were  in 
anxious  search  of  a  suitable  candidate  for  the  important  crisis. 
They  were  not  wanting  in  men,  whose  political  experience,  dis- 
tinguished ability,  and  brilliant  reputation,  eminently  qualified 
them  for  the  office.  Of  these,  some  had  already  been  candidates 
and  had  suffered  defeat.  Others  lacked  the  elements  of  popularity 
that  were  essential  to  success.  The  general  impression  of  the 
party  favored  the  selection  of  a  new  man.  The  younger  portion 

*  Wendell's  Reports,  VoL  XI,  p.  456.  f  See  Yol  III,  p.  25. 


THE  HOLLAND  LAND  COMPANY.  xxxvii 

of  the  whigs  were  earnestly  desirous  that  the  candidate  should 
be  taken  from  their  ranks.  Mr.  Seward's  distinguished  senatorial 
career  had  made  him  prominent  before  the  party  and  the  state. 
His  bold  attacks  on  the  policy  of  the  administration  had  won  the 
gratitude  and.the  admiration  of  the  whigs.  It  was  mainly  through 
his  efforts,  that  the  party  had  been  organized,  and  no  one  was  bet- 
ter fitted  than  himself  to  take  the  position  of  their  acknowledged 
leader. 

Accordingly,  at  the  "Whig  State  Convention,  held  in  Utica, 
Sept.  13th,  1834,  Mr.  Seward  was  nominated  as  a  candidate  for 
governor.  The  election  came,  and  he  was  defeated.  The  result 
showed  that  the  whig  party  had  not  been  able  to  put  forth  its  full 
strength.  It  had  not  yet  gained  confidence  in  its  own  power  to 
cope  with  a  party  that  had' never  been  overthrown,  and  was  sus- 
tained by  the  monetary  influence  of  the  state  and  the  vast  patron- 
age of  the  national  government.  Mr.  Seward  received  a  flattering 
vote,  and  led  his  ticket  in  all  the  counties,  but  Gov.  Marcy  was 
re-elected  by  a  majority  of  about  ten  thousand. 

Mr.  Seward,  having  escaped  the  claims  of  public  life,  resumed 
the  practice  of  his  profession  at  the  commencement  of  the  year 
1835.  Nor  did  he  lose  his  interest  in  the  great  political  questions 
of  the  day.  He  still  labored,  with  unshrinking  fidelity,  in  sup- 
port of  the  party  to  which  he  was  attached,  and  of  which,  by  a 
large  portion,  he  was  regarded  as  the  head. 

On  the  3d  of  October,  1835,  he  delivered  an  address*  at  Au- 
burn on  Education  and  Internal  Improvements.  This  production 
was  remarkable  for  its  anticipations  of  the  progress  of  the  state, 
and  its  lucid  exposition  of  the  principles  of  government,  which 
he  afterwards  carried  into  effect,  daring  his  administration  as 
chief  magistrate. 

In  July,  1836,  Mr.  Seward  established  himself  in  Westfield, 
Chautauque  county,  for  the  purpose  of  assuming  an  agency  to  quiet 
the  troubles  between  the  landlords  and  tenants  of  the  Holland 
Company.  Serious  difficulties  had  arisen  among  the  settlers  on  the 
tract  of  the  company,  and  the  services  of  Mr.  Seward  seemed  im- 
portant for  the  restoration  of  tranquillity.  A  change  of  scene  also 
it  was  hoped,  would  prove  favorable  to  his  health,  which  had  be- 
come impaired  by  his  assiduous  professional  labors.  The  manner 
in  which  he  conducted  this  agency  subjected  him  to  much  reproach 

*  See  VoL  III,  p.   128. 


XXXviii  NEW  YORK  AND  ERIE  RAILROAD. 

in  a  subsequent  political  canvass.     But  of  this  we  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  treat  in  another  place.* 

The  election  for  governor  in  1836  resulted  in  favor  of  Mr.  Marcy, 
who  received  a  majority  of  nearly  40,000  votes  over  the  whig 
candidate,  Mr.  Jesse  Buel.  Meantime,  Mr.  Seward  continued  his 
agency,  and  his  professional  toil,  with  extraordinary  success.  His 
growing  fame  produced  no  abatement  of  his  industry,  and  he  de- 
voted himself  to  the  interests  of  his  clients  with  the  same  earnest- 
ness and  zeal  which  he  had  exhibited  in  his  political  efforts  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate.  During  this  period  he  prepared  several  essays, 
which  display  genuine  literary  merit,  no  less  than  a  spirit  of  en- 
larged and  comprehensive  statesmanship. 

Mr.  Seward  received  an  invitation  to  deliver  a  discourse  on 
Education!  at  "Westfield  in  July,  1837.  He  accepted  the  service, 
which  he  performed  with  signal  ability.  The  discourse  was  a  clear 
and  eloquent  defence  of  the  principle  of  universal  education.  It 
maintained  the  duty  of  giving  public  instruction  to  all  classes  of 
the  people,  irrespective  of  condition  or  circumstances.  In  regard 
to  the  education  of  females,  it  claimed  for  woman  the  highest 
standard  of  literary  attainment,  challenging  for  her  the  same  in- 
tellectual advantages  that  were  enjoyed  by  the  other  sex. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  whigs  of  Cayuga  county,  Oct.  11, 1837,  Mr. 
Seward  delivered  a  speech  of  masterly  ability.  The  state  of  the 
country  called  forth  his  most  vigorous  eloquence.  The  commercial 
revulsion,  which  he  had  so  long  predicted,  was  sweeping  over  the 
land.  Disastrous  experience  gave  ample  confirmation  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  whigs.  In  his  speech  on  this  occasion,  Mr.  Seward 
earnestly  appealed  to  the  people  to  redress  their  wrongs  at  the  bal- 
lot box.  This  was  only  one  of  many  efforts  during  the  canvass.  He 
was  indefatigable  in  his  exertions,  which  were  now  crowned  with 
the  most  brilliant  success.  The  election  resulted  in  the  total  over- 
throw of  the  Albany  regency.  The  whigs  gained  a  triumphant  vic- 
tory throughout  the  state,  electing  six  out  of  eight  new  senators,  and 
one  hundred  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  members  of 
the  Assembly. 

The  New  York  and  Erie  Eailroad  was  originally  undertaken  by 
a  company  chartered  while  Mr.  Seward  was  a  member  of  the 
Senate.  He  voted  against  the  charter,  not  through  hostility  to  the 
construction  of  the  road,  but  on  the  ground  that  so  great  an  enter- 

*  See  Letter  to  the  citizens  of  Ckiutauque  Co.,  VoL  III.         f  See  VoL  HI,  p.  136. 


SECOND  NOMINATION  FOR  GOVERNOR  XXXIX 

prise  could  not  be  effected  by  a  corporation,  and  that  the  road 
when  completed  should  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  state,  like  the 
Erie  Canal,  for  the  public  benefit.  His  vote  being  misrepresented 
in  the  election  of  1834,  he  corrected  the  error  in  a  letter  to  a  com- 
mittee,* declaring  himself  unreservedly  in  favor  of  that  great  work. 
As  he  had  predicted,  the  enterprise  languished  until  1837,  when  it 
was  abandoned  by  the  regency  and  its  party  in  the  legislature. 
It  was  still  sustained  by  the  whig  majority  in  the  Assembly,  whose 
policy,  however,  was  rejected  by  a  regency  Senate. 

A  convention  of  the  friends  of  the  railroad  was  held  at  Elmira 
on  the  17th  of  October,  1837,  at  which  Mr.  Seward  was  present. 
He  was  the  first  citizen,  living  in  a  portion  of  the  state  not  im- 
mediately interested  in  the  enterprise,  who  gave  it  his  personal 
support  At  the  request  of  the  convention,  he  prepared  an  ad- 
dress f  on  the  subject  to  the  people  of  the  state  of  ISTew  York,  in 
which  he  gave  a  brief  history  of  the  road,  and  urged  the  adoption 
of  efficient  measures  for  its  speedy  completion.  He  placed  the 
resumption  of  the  work  on  the  same  broad  principles  of  policy 
which  pervaded  his  subsequent  administration.  On  the  strength 
of  such  reasonings,  the  whig  party  throughout  the  state  gradually 
yielded  their  aid  to  the  project,  and  at  length  rejoiced  in  the  com- 
pletion of  the  truly  magnificent  structure. 

At  the  Whig  State  Convention  in  1838,  the  names  of  William 
H.  Seward  and  Luther  Bradish  were  presented  to  the  electors  of 
the  state  for  governor  and  lieutenant-governor.  The  previous 
defeat  of  Mr.  Seward  had  not  in  the  least  degree  weakened  the 
confidence  of  his  friends.  They  knew  that  it  was  not  owing  to 
personal  causes,  but  to  the  position  of  parties ;  and  hence  were 
anxious  again  to  present  his  claims  for  the  suffrages  of  the  people. 
Great  importance  was  attached  to  the  election  by  both  political 
parties,  on  account  of  its  bearing  on  the  presidential  campaign  of 
18-10.  The  canvass  labored  under  peculiar  difficulties.  During  a 
season  of  great  pecuniary  embarrassment,  Mr.  Seward  had  con- 
ducted the  affairs  of  the  Holland  Land  Company  to  the  eve  of  a 
prosperous  close.  His  agency  in  Chautauque  county  had  been 
managed  with  discretion  and  kindness ;  but  it  did  not  fail  to  be 
used  by  his  political  opponents  as  an  instrument  of  reproach. 
Hoping  to  alienate  the  whigs  from  their  favorite  candidate,  they 
charged  him  with  fraud,  injustice  and  oppression,  in  his  treatment 

*  See  VoL  III,  p.  417.  f  See  VoL  III,  p.  306. 


xl  LETTER  TO  THE  ABOLITIONISTS. 

of  the  settlers,  averring  that  he  had  employed  his  official  power  in 
the  agency  for  his  own  private  emolument,  and  the  benefit  of  land 
speculators.  Mr.  Seward  was  silent  in  regard  to  these  calumnies, 
until  they  had  awakened  a  painful  anxiety  toward  the  close  of 
the  canvass.  He  then  published  his  letter  to  the  citizens  of  Chau- 
tauque  county,*  which,  by  its  clear  and.  cogent  statements,  put 
an  effectual  stop  to  the  slanders  that  were  in  circulation  and  gave 
him  popular  strength  never  enjoyed  before. 

The  slavery  question  was  another  perplexing  element  in  this  can- 
vass. The  yet  distant  prospect  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  view- 
ed with  alarm  by  the  friends  of  liberty  at  the  North.  It  renewed  the 
discussion  of  slavery,which  had  not  entered  into  political  movements 
since  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1820.  A  portion  of  the  citizens 
of  New  York,  headed  by  William  Jay  and  Gerrit  Smith,  had  ad- 
dressed letters  to  the  several  candidates  for  office,  intended  to  draw 
out  their  views  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  mass  of  all  parties 
regarded  this  course  of  action  with  profound  disgust.  The  candi- 
dates of  the  regency  party  did  not  hesitate  to  give  a  negative 
answer  to  the  questions  that  had  been  propounded.  The  whigs 
were  thought  to  be  placed  in  an  inconvenient  dilemma.  Mr. 
Seward's  answerf  was  at  once  frank  and  sagacious.  While  he  ex- 
pressed without  reserve  his  devotion  to  human  freedom,  he  limited 
his  aims  by  a  regard  to  prevailing  opinions,  and  a  sense  of  what 
was  practicable  in  the  attainment  of  right.  His  reply  did  not 
compromise  his  popularity,  as  had  been  hoped  by  his  oppo- 
nents. 

The  election  was  warmly  contested.  With  the  regency  the 
struggle  was  for  life  or  death.  No  measures  were  neglected  on 
their  part  to  defeat  the  candidates  of  the  whigs.  Every  species  of 
objection  was  urged  against  Mr.  Seward.  The  gravest  and  the 
most  trivial  charges  were  alike  brought  to  bear  on  the  can- 
vass. Among  other  things  he  was  accused  of  the  "atrocious 
crime"  of  being  a  young  man,  as  he  was  but  thirty-three 
when  first  nominated  for  governor,  and  at  this  time  but 
thirty -seven.  The  election  took  place  in  November,  and  in  spite 
of  unexpected  disasters  to  the  whig  cause  in  all  other  states,  the 
"  young  man"  was  triumphantly  elected.  Mr.  Seward's  majority 
reached  to  10,4:21.  The  whig  party  carried  the  state  in  every  de- 
partment, and  secured  a  complete  ascendancy  of  political  power. 
»  See  VoL  IIL  p.  457.  f  See  VoL  III.  p.  426. 


ENTERS  UPON  HIS  DUTIES  AS   GOVERNOR.  xli 

Mr.  Seward  was  the  first  whig  governor  of  New  York.  "With  the  ex- 
ception of  De  "Witt  Clinton,  he  was  the  only  one  who  had  ever  been 
elected  in  opposition  to  the  Albany  regency.  The  party  which  had 
virtually  dictated  the  policy  of  the  state  for  nearly  fifty  years  was 
thus  eS'ectually  destroyed,  and  a  new  development  of  principles 
was  to  be  realized  under  the  administration  of  William  II.  Seward. 

In  entering  upon  the  executive  office,  Gov.  Seward  was  sur- 
rounded with  peculiar  difficulties.  The  business  of  the  country 
had  been  prostrated  by  the  revulsions  of  1836.  His  political 
friends  looked  with  confidence  to  his  administration  for  the  finan- 
cial relief  of  the  public.  The  whigs,  moreover,  were  in  power 
for  the  first  time.  Numerous  and  excited  applicants  eagerly 
pressed  their  claims  for  office.  In  this  crisis,  Gov.  Seward  con- 
ducted with  great  moderation  and  impartiality.  Cautious  in 
making  promises,  he  rejected  no  application  without  substantial 
reasons,  which  he  never  took  pains  to  conceal.  His  frankness 
in  rendering  all  necessary  explanations  to  a  disappointed  candi- 
date was  equal  to  the  wise  reserve  with  which  he  abstained  from 
giving  undue  encouragement.""  In  this  judicious  course,  however, 
he  did  not  avoid  offence.  Applicants  were  more  numerous  than 
offices.  Of  course,  some  must  be  disappointed.  And  of  these 
some  rallied  around  rival  statesmen.  Gov.  Seward  thus  incurred 
the  opposition  of  several  prominent  members  of  the  whig  party, 
who,  naturally  enough,  adopted  principles  different  from  his  own. 

Nor  did  his  election  bring  the  political  contest  in  the  state  of 
New  York  to  a  close.  An  important  battle  had  been  won,  but 
the  campaign  was  not  completed.  Never  did  party  zeal  run  to  a 
greater  height,  than  during  the  period  of  his  administration.  In 
describing  his  official  career,  we  shall  do  little  more  than  indicate 
the  principles  by  which  it  was  inspired,  as  delivered  in  his  mes- 
sages, and  other  executive  papers. 

Among  the  measures  to  which  the  attention  of  Gov.  Seward 
was  early  directed,  was  the  completion  of  a  lunatic  asylum,  and 
the  adoption  of  a  judicious  and  humane  system  for  the  treatment 
of  the  insane.  Before  his  retirement  from  office,  his  suggestions 
in  this  behalf  were  carried  into  successful  operation.  Frequently 
visiting  this  and  other  charities  of  the  state,  he  recommended 
them  to  the  patronage  of  the  legislature,  as  well  by  his  example 
as  his  counsels. 

*  See  Official  Correspondence,  Vol.  II,  p.  689. 


xlii  AGRICULTURE— EDUCATION. 

In  the  exercise  of  the  pardoning  power,  Gov.  Seward  exercised 
we  think,  a  greater  degree  of  wisdom  than  most  of  his  predecessors. 
At  the  same  time  he  labored  for  the  introduction  of  milder  forms  of 
punishment  in  the  penitentiaries,  substituting  moral  discipline 
for  the  lash.  These  reforms  were  afterward  adopted  by  the 
legislature. 

The  interests  of  agriculture  always  received  the  fostering  care 
of  Gov.  Seward.  He  was  anxious  for  the  establishment  of  an 
agricultural  department  in  the  state,  with  a  view  to  the  especial 
promotion  of  that  important  source  of  public  prosperity.  His 
efforts  for  that  measure,  however,  were  not  seconded  by  the  legisla- 
ture, and  have  remained  to  this  day  without  direct  fruit. 

Upon  the  accession  of  Gov.  Seward  to  office,  the  system  of 
normal  schools  in  connexion  with  academies  and  common  school 
libraries,  had  been  partially  established.  These  measures  received 
his  cordial  and  efficient  support.  At  his  suggestion,  a  system  of 
visitation  and  inspection  of  common  schools  was  adopted  by  the 
legislature,  although  it  has  failed  to  be  carried  into  full  effect, 
much  to  the  detriment  of  the  cause  of  popular  education. 

In  his  messages,  Gov.  Seward  took  the  ground  that  the  welfare 
of  the  state  demanded  the  education  of  all  its  children,*  not  as  a 
matter  of  charity,  but  of  justice  and  public  safety.  The  defects 
in  the  public  schools  of  New  York  city  led  him  to  recommend  a 
modification  of  the  system,  and  the  ultimate  substitution  of  the 
plan  which  prevailed  in  the  rest  of  the  state.  A  prejudice,  par- 
taking both  of  a  national  and  religious  character,  had  come  down 
from  the  colonial  period  against  foreigners,  and  especially  against 
catholics.  It  was  this  class  of  the  population  that  would  be  most 
directly  benefited  by  the  change  in  the  city  schools.  It  was  pro- 
posed to  admit  catholic  teachers  with  the  same  facilities  as  others. 
An  alarm  was  at  once  raised  throughout  the  state.  The  protestant 
cause  was  declared  to  be  in  danger,  from  the  undue  ascendancy  of 
the  catholics.  Eeligious  bigotry  was  thus  excited.  The  hostility, 
both  of  protestant  clergy  and  laity,  was  arrayed  against  the  gov- 
ernor. He  was  labeled  in  effigy  in  Xew  York.  The  press  teemed 
with  abuse  of  his  person  and  measures.  Meantime  his  political 
opponents,  who  had  always  professed  to  be  more  friendly  to 
foreigners  and  catholics  than  the  whigs,  did  not  fail  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  popular  jealousy  for  the  promotion  of  their  views.  The 

*  See  Annual  Message,  ToL  IL  pp.  206,  216. 


SCHOOLS— CATHOLICS.  xliii 

whigs,  on  the  other  hand,  who  were  accustomed  to  contend  with 
naturalized  foreigners  at  the  polls,  were  unwilling  to  accord  them 
any  privileges.  Between  the  two  parties,  Gov.  Seward  was  obliged 
to  maintain  the  contemplated  reform  on  its  own  merits.  His  in- 
fluence was  greatly  impaired  by  the  general  impression  that  the 
measures  in  question  were  not  only  untenable  in  themselves,  but 
that  they  had  their  origin  in  sinister  political  purposes.  This  im- 
pression, however,  was  wholly  unfounded,  and  did  great  injustice 
to  Gov.  Seward.  His  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  children  of  catholics 
sprung  from  a  deep  conviction  of  the  importance  of  education  to 
all  men,  without  regard  to  condition  or  circumstances.*  During 
his  travels  in  Ireland  in  1833,  he  saw  the  effect  of  British  policy 
in  depriving  the  catholic  population  of  the  means  of  instruction. 
The  people,  thus  kept  in  abject  ignorance,  were  more  easily  made 
the  victims  of  oppression  and  tyranny,  and  more  liable  to  become 
seditious  and  treasonable.  This  spectacle  produced  a  strong  im- 
pression on  his  mind.  He  became  anxious  that  the  catholics  in 
America  should  be  put  in  possession  of  the  advantages  of  educa- 
tion, and  so  be  assimilated  to  the  native  population,  f 

The  controversy  on  the  school  question  continued  throughout  the 
whole  of  Gov.  Seward's  administration.  It  affected  his  popularity 
so  much  as  to  deprive  him  of  about  2,000  votes  on  his- re-election. 
The  result,  however,  has  shown  his  far-reaching  sagacity.  Like 
many  other  measures  proposed  by  Gov.  Seward,  this  was  in  ad- 
vance of  public  opinion,  but  has  since  commended  itself  to  the  good 
sense  of  the  people.  At  the  first  session  of  the  legislature,  after 
his  retirement  from  office,  his  plan  for  the  education  of  all  classes 
of  children,  not  excluding  those  of  foreigners  and  catholics,  was 
adopted  by  decisive  majorities.  ISTo  doubt  has  since  arisen  as  to  the 
utility  of  the  measure,  except  on  the  part  of  those  whose  religious 
scruples  had  led  them  to  decline  a  participation  in  its  advantages.^: 

Along  with  these  efforts  of  Gov.  Seward  in  behalf  of  educational 
reform,  he  was  also  actively  engaged  in  the  removal  of  the  prej- 
udices between  native  Americans  and  adopted  citizens.  His 
recommendations  to  successive  legislatures  for  abolishing  the  legal 

*  See  General  Correspondence.     Letters  to  Bishop  Hughes  and  others,     VoL  III. 

|  See  letters  from  Europe,  Vol.  III. 

\  Gov.  Seward's  attention  was  first  called  to  this  question  by  the  fact  that  the  annual 
school  returns  from  New  York  showed  that  there  were  about  25,000  children  in  that 
city  who  did  not  attend  school,  and  were  thus  left  exposed  to  the  allurements  of  vice 
and  crime. 


LAW   REFORM. 

disabilities  under  which  foreigners  labored,  were  with  more  or  less 
reluctance,  ultimately  adopted.* 

The  city  of  New  York  was,  at  that  time  just  beginning  to  be  crowd- 
ed with  immigrants  who  poured  into  the  country  from  foreign  lands. 
Overtaken  by  poverty  and  disease,  they  served  to  fill  the  alms- 
houses  and  the  prisons.  Their  overflowing  numbers  increased  the 
amount  both  of  wretchedness  and  of  crime.  In  order  to  lessen  the 
evil,  a  tax  upon  emigrants  was  recommended  by  the  mayor  of 
New  York.  The  proposal  met  with  general  favor.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  public  was  astounded  by  the  suggestions  of  Gov. 
Seward  for  the  encouragement  of  emigration.  He  maintained  that 
the  surplus  labor  of  foreign  lands  should  be  employed  to  advantage 
in  developing  the  natural  resources  of  this  country.  Instead  of 
shutting  our  doors  upon  the  down-trodden  emigrant,  he  insisted 
that  we  should  welcome  him  to  a  share  in  our  industry  and  citi- 
zenship. This  generous  and  humane  policy,  however,  was  vehe- 
mently condemned.  It  subjected  its  author  to  great  reproach. 
Still,  as  in  the  case  of  the  school  reform,  his  measures  were  finally 
adopted  by  the  state.  In  1847  they  were  made  the  subject  of 
discussion  in  the  legislature,  and  having  passed  that  body,  have 
since  been  a  part  of  the  established  policy  of  New  York. 

The  courts  of  law  and  of  chancery  in  the  state  of  New  York 
had  from  time  immemorial  been  subject  to  a  variety  of  expensive 
delays.  Organized  on  the  model  of  the  English  system,  the  higher 
courts  consisted  of  judges,  a  chancellor,  and  a  vice-chancellor  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  and  senate,  and  holding  office  until  sixty 
years  of  age.  In  the  common  pleas  the  judges  were  appointed  for 
five  years  by  the  same  power.  The  legal  practice  was  marked  by 
all  the  prolixity,  technicalities,  and  superfluous  expense  of  the 
English  courts.  The  judiciary  and  the  banking  powers  were  com- 
bined with  overpowering  and  overshadowing  influences  by  the 
Albany  regency.  Gov.  Seward  exerted  all  his  influence  in  favor  of 
reform.  He  was  opposed  both  by  the  bar  and  the  judiciary.  In 
opposition  to  their  combined  efforts,  he  secured  the  passage  of  bills 
in  the  legislature  for  reducing  the  expenses,  and  simplifying  the 
practice  in  all  the  courts  of  the  state.  Nor  did  he  stop  with  this 
measure  for  the  relief  of  the  public.  He  urged  a  complete  reform 
in  the  constitution  of  the  courts.  His  plan  involved  the  abolition 
of  the  court  of  chancery,  and  a  new  organization  of  the  supreme 

*  See  Annual  Messages,  VoL  II. 


A  GENERAL  BANKING  LAW.  xlv 

courts  and  the  common  pleas.  The  legislature  did  not  receive  his 
suggestions  with  favor ;  but  they  did  not  fail  to  exert  a  salutary 
influence  on  the  public  mind.  No  one  can  doubt  that  they  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  radical  change  in  the  constitution  effected 
in  1846.  Under  this  arrangement  the  court  of  chancery,  after  an 
existence  of  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  was  abolished,  and 
all  judicial  offices  made  elective  by  the  people. 

It  was  the  desire  of  Gov.  Seward  from  the  commencement  of 
his  official  career,  to  effect  the  decentralization  of  the  political 
power  in  the  state.  By  the  existing  laws,  the  judges  of  common 
pleas  were  associated  in  the  respective  counties  with  the  board  of 
supervisors  in  the  appointment  of  commissioners  of  deeds,  super- 
intendents of  the  poor,  and  other  county  officers.  The  boards  of 
supervisors  were  usually  divided  in  politics,  and  hence  the  ap- 
pointments were  in  fact  decided  by  the  central  power  at  Albany, 
from  which  the  judges  received  their  offices.  At  the  recommenda- 
tion of  Gov.  Seward  the  appointing  power  was  withdrawn  from  the 
judges,  and  the  election  of  most  of  these  offices  given  to  the  peo- 
ple. His  efforts  for  reducing  the  emoluments  of  several  favorites 
in  public  office  were  partially  sanctioned  by  the  legislature.  But 
his  recommendation  to  abolish  the  office  of  inspector  of  various 
branches  of  produce  and  manufacture  was  not  adopted  until  after 
the  close  of  his  administration. 

The  safety  fund  system,  of  which  Gov.  Seward  had  always  been 
a  decided  opponent,  exploded  in  1837.  A  general  banking  law, 
passed  by  the  whig  assembly  of  1838,  gave  the  liberty  of  banking 
to  any  voluntary  association  of  citizens.  The  new  system,  however, 
was  at  first  defective  in  its  details.  Many  of  the  banks  under  this 
organization  failed,  producing  a  loss  to  the  bill-holders.  During 
Gov.  Seward's  administration,  the  law  was  revised,  and  with  suc- 
cessive improvements,  has  become  the  settled  policy  of  the  state, 
and  has  also  been  adopted  by  several  other  states  of  the  Union. 

A  warm  discussion  arose  during  this  period,  in  regard  to  the 
minimum  denomination  of  bank  paper  to  be  used  as  a  circulating 
medium.  In  accordance  with  the  views  of  Gen.  Jackson,  bills 
under  five  dollars  were  prohibited  by  the  legislature  of  1837.  The 
senate  of  1838  refused  to  repeal  this  law.  At  the  recommendation 
of  Gov.  Seward  in  1839,  the  act  was  repealed  by  the  whig  legis- 
lature and  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  restore  it  since. 

The  geological  survey  of  the  state,  which  had  been  commenced 


xlvi  IMPRISONMENT  FOR  DEBT. 

pursuant  to  au  act  of  the  legislature  in  1836,  was  brought  to  a 
completion,  under  the  auspices  of  Gov.  Seward.  At  his  sugges- 
tion, the  legislature]  appropriated  funds  from  time  to  time  for  its 
prosecution,  and  established  a  depository  for  the  preservation  of 
specimens  illustrative  of  the  natural  history  of  the  state.  This, 
he  recommended  should  be  made  the  foundation  for  a  system  of 
popular  instruction  in  the  natural  sciences,  with  a  view  to  the  im- 
provement of  agriculture.  The  spirit  of  his  suggestion  has  been 
carried  into  effect  by  the  State  Agricultural  Society,  in  its  system 
of  popular  lectures  and  discussions  which  are  held  in  the  Geologi- 
cal Museum  at  Albany. 

The  results  of  the  geological  survey  were  embodied  in  a  series 
of  quarto  volumes,  which  ultimately  reached  the  number  of  thir- 
teen. Gov.  Seward  prepared  an  elaborate  introduction  to  the 
work,  consisting  of  a  review  of  the  settlement,  progress,  and  con- 
dition of  the  state  of  New  York,  somewhat  on  the  plan  of  Mr. 
Jefferson's  "  Notes  on  Virginia."  This  historical  essay  is  written 
in  a  style  of  admirable  clearness  and  fluency,  abounding  in  re- 
condite and  valuable  information,  and  pervaded  by  an  elevated 
tone  of  patriotism  and  humanity.  It  appears  in  this  work  under 
the  title  of  "Notes  on  New  York."* 

The  abolition  of  imprisonment  for  debt,  effected  in  1832,  did 
not  reach  the  class  of  non-resident  debtors,  or  those  held  by  pro- 
cess issuing  from  the  United  States  Courts.  Gov.  Seward  was 
opposed,  both  from  feeling  and  principle,  to  depriving  unfortunate 
debtors  of  their  liberty  and  of  the  opportunity  to  provide  for 
their  families.  He  had  not  been  long  in  the  executive  office, 
when  he  procured  the  passage  of  laws,  which  swept  away  these 
relics  of  barbarism  from  the  jurisprudence  of  the  state. 

In  general,  the  laws  of  the  state  were  faithfully  executed  during 
Gov.  Reward's  administration.  There  was,  however,  an  exception. 
In  the  counties  of  Albany  and  Rensselaer,  was  a  tract  of  land, 
fifty  miles  square,  lying  on  both  sides  of  the  Hudson  river,  which 
was  claimed  to  have  been  granted  by  the  Dutch  government,  at  an 
early  day  to  the  Yan  Eensselaer  family,  and  which  was  originally  de- 
nominated the  manor  of  "  Rensselaerwyck."  The  lands  on  this  tract 
had  not  been  granted  in  fee  to  settlers,  as  elsewhere,  but  had  been 
fanned  out  on  perpetual  leases,  securing  annuities  to  the  proprie- 
tor, (denominated  the  Patroon^)  payable  in  kind  and  in  labor, 

*  See  Vol.  IL  p.  9 


ANTI-RENT   TROUBLES.  xlvii 

and  containing  covenants,  raising  charges  upon  alienation.  The 
late  Patroon,  Hon.  Stephen  Yan  Rensselaer,  had  suffered  numer- 
ous arrearages  of  rent  to  remain  uncollected  for  many  years.  At 
his  decease,  his  heirs  demanded  payment  of  these  arrearages. 
The  tenants  refused  to  comply.  Differences  growing  out  of  these 
matters,  which  extended  back  through  a  period  of  near  fifty 
years,  ripened,  in  1839,  into  discontents,  popular  outbreaks,  and 
open  resistance  of  the  laws.  Kefusing  to  tamper  with  such  vio- 
lent proceedings  for  a  moment,  Gov.  Seward  issued  his  procla- 
mation,* calling  upon  the  discontented  to  reflect  upon  the  nature 
and  consequences  of  their  unlawful  acts,  and  apply  to  the  legis- 
lature for  redress  of  their  grievances,  pledging  himself  to  grant 
them  every  aid  in  his  power,  in  bringing  their  complaints  before 
that  body.  This  proclamation  was  accompanied  by  the  or- 
ganization and  despatch  of  a  military  force,  which,  acting  under 
the  authority  of  the  sheriff,  attended  him  until  he  had  executed 
the  legal  processes  in  his  hands,  including  those  against  the  indi- 
viduals who  had  resisted  the  laws. 

In  announcing  these  measures  to  the  legislature  in  his  annual 
message,  in  1840,1  Gov.  Seward  discussed  the  nature  of  the 
tenures  out  of  which  the  disturbances  had  arisen,  and  recom- 
mended that  efforts  should  be  made  for 'the  removal  of  the  diffi- 
culty which  threatened  to  be  lasting  and  serious  in  its  consequences. 
He  urged  a  compromise  of  the  conflicting  claims  of  landlord 
and  tenant,  with  their  consent,  and  without  injustice  to  either 
party.  The  recommendation  was  adopted,  and  Hugh  Maxwell 
and  Gary  V.  Sacket,  Esqs.,  were  appointed  commissioners  to 
effect,  if  possible,  a  satisfactory  adjustment.  After  examining 
the  subject,  and  hearing  all  the  parties,  the  commissioners  decided 
on -the  basis  of  an  adjustment,  which  they  recommended  for  the 
adoption  of  the  litigants.  The  tenants  assented.  But  the  land- 
lord, under  mistaken  advice,  refused  the  proffered  terms,  and  in- 
sisted on  the  rights  secured  in  his  leases.  So  the  settlement  failed. 

During  the  residue  of  Gov.  Seward's  administration,  the  laws 
were  executed  throughout  the  discontented  regions,  as  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  state.  But  the  controversy  between  the  proprietors 
of  the  Rensselaer  manor  and  the  tenants,  still  continued,  and  has 
not  been  settled  to  the  present  time.  Loud  complaints  were  made 
against  the  governor  for  what  was  alleged  to  be  an  unjust  conces- 

*  See   Vol.  II,   p.   352.  f  See  Vol.  II,  p.  219. 


xlviii  ELECTION  REFORMS. 

sion  to  the  claims  of  the  tenants,  in  treating  the  restraints  on 
alienation  and  other  features  in  these  cases,  as  illegal  and  inexpe- 
dient. Since  Gov.  Seward's  retirement  from  the  executive  office, 
armed  resistance  has  been  more  than  once  renewed,  and  a  ruinous 
litigation  has  never  been  suspended.  "While  we  are  writing  these 
memoirs,*  the  Court  of  Appeals  has  vindicated  the  views  of  Gov. 
Seward,  by  declaring  the  restraints  upon  alienation,  illegal  and 
void. 

This  affair  furnishes  another  instance  of  Gov.  Seward's  clear 
forecast  and  sound  wisdom,  in  the  adoption  of  measures  for  the 
removal  of  existing  evils.  For  the  time  being,  owing  to  a  want 
of  equally  enlarged  views,  his  recommendations  have  been  dis- 
carded. But  time  vindicates  their  soundness.  In  the  present 
case,  after  the  subject  had  been  litigated,  discussed,  and  argued 
for  years,  before  legislatures  and  courts,  the  decision  was  finally 
made  in  conformity  with  the  views  he  had  originally  urged  upon 
the  parties  interested. 

In  his  earlier  years,  Gov.  Seward,  as  we  have  seen,  devoted 
considerable  attention  to  military  affairs.  During  his  administra- 
tion, he  labored  for  the  accomplishment  of  certain  reforms  in  the 
militia  system,  which  he  had  urged  while  a  member  of  the  Senate. 
Its  unequal  operation  was  regarded  by  him  as  an  infringement  of 
personal  rights,  and  a  great  public  evil.  He  endeavored  to  re- 
lieve the  members  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  other  persons 
who  declined  performing  military  duty  from  religious  scruples. 
This  measure  was  not  adopted  by  the  legislature.  But  he  did 
not  fail  to  use  the  pardoning  power  of  the  executive  in  behalf  of 
those,  who  had  incurred  the  penalty  of  the  law,  in  obedience  to 
their  consciences.  In  this  course,  Gov.  Seward  was  true  to  the 
enlarged  and  liberal  sentiments,  which  he  had  long  cherished,  in 
regard  to  religious  freedom. f  It  was  one  of  his  strongest  convic- 
tions, that  no  class  of  citizens  should  suffer  from  legal  disabilities, 
on  account  of  matters  of  conscience.  Here,  too,  his  views,  at 
last,  received  the  sanction  of  public  opinion,  and  the  changes  in 
the  militia  system,  which  he  had  urged  in  his  messages,  became 
the  policy  of  the  state. 

Previously  to  1841,  the  elections  in  New  York  occupied  three 
days — a  single  board  of  inspectors  receiving  all  the  votes  in  each 
town  or  ward.  This  arrangement  occasioned  numerous  inconve- 

*  October,  1852.  f  See  Miscellaneous  Correspondence,  Vol.  III.,  p.  481. 


THE   REGISTRY  LAW.  xlix 

niences.  In  the  larger  cities,  especially,  it  gave  rise  to  a  system 
of  frauds  and  combinations,  impairing  the  purity  of  elections, 
and  impeding  the  voter  in  the  exercise  of  his  political  rights. 
Violent  contests  took  place  at  the  polls,  which  often  resulted  in 
the  destruction  of  the  ballot-box.  Every  one  acknowledged  and 
deplored  the  evil.  It  was  not  so  easy,  however,  to  discover  the 
remedy.  The  whigs  were  in  favor  of  an  act  of  registration ;  but 
this  was  regarded  by  the  opposite  party  as  a  scheme  to  deprive 
the  poorer  classes  of  the  exercise  of  suffrage.  As  the  support  of 
both  the  great  political  parties  of  the  day  was  essential  to  the 
success  of  the  measure,  the  whigs  modified  their  demands,  limit- 
ing the  call  for  a  registry  to  the  city  of  New  York.  Gov.  Seward 
could  not  give  this  course  his  approval.  He  was  opposed  to  all 
partial,  invidious  legislation.  Nor  could  he  be  convinced  of  the 
practicability  of  the  measure,  in  the  existing  state  of  feeling. 
He  accordingly  dissuaded  his  friends  from  urging  the  passage  of 
such  an  act.  In  its  place,  he  recommended  the  division  of  towns 
and.  wards  into  election  districts,  each  containing  not  more  than 
five  hundred  voters,  and  the  limitation  of  the  time  for  holding 
elections  to  a  single  day.  These  suggestions  were  accepted  by 
the  whigs,  who  then  formed  a  majority  of  the  legislature.  But 
under  the  influence  of  members  from  New  York,  they  added  a 
provision  for  a  registry  act  in  that  city. 

Gov.  Seward  was  thus  again  brought  into  collision  with  his  po- 
litical friends.  He  prepared  a  veto  message,*  presenting  his  ob- 
jections to  the  feature  of  the  bill  establishing  a  registry.  On 
consultation,  however,  with  the  whigs,  it  was  found  that  even  if  the 
bill  should  not  pass  in  spite  of  the  veto,  yet  the  party  would  be  con- 
vulsed by  the  consequent  excitement,  and  incur  the  hazard  of  yield- 
ing the  control  of  the  state  to  their  political  opponents.  The 
governor  was  thus  induced  to  suppress  the  veto  and  approve  the 
bill,  frankly  stating  to  the  legislature  his  objections  to  the  feature 
in  question,  and  predicting  its  ultimate  effect.  An  election  was 
held  under  the  new  law,  in  the  following  autumn.  The  city  of 
New  York  returned  a  democratic  majority,  induced  by  the  new 
provision.  The  legislature  at  once  repealed  it  by  a  unanimous 
vote.  The  other  provisions  of  the  law  still  remain  in  force. 

The  patriot  disturbance  in  Canada  which  occurred  in  1837, 
awakened  deep  interest  among  the  people  of  the  United  States, 

*  See  Vol.  Ill,  p.  379. 
VOL.   f. — D. 


1  THE  M'LEOD  AFFAIR. 

who  lived  adjacent  to  the  frontier.  A  military  corps  was  organ- 
ized to  aid  the  Canadians  in  their  struggle  for  independence.  The 
federal  government  adopted  stringent  measures  to  enforce  the 
neutrality  laws.  During  these  excitements  an  event  took  place 
which  threatened  serious  embarrassment  to  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  with  Great  Britain.  On  the  night  of  Dec.  29, 1837, 
an  armed  force  from  Canada  crossed  the  Niagara  river,  attacked 
a  party  of  American  citizens,  who  were  then  asleep  in  the  steam- 
boat Caroline,  lying  in  the  river  at  Schlosser.  One  man  was  kill- 
ed ;  the  rest  were  driven  ashore.  Having  cut  out  the  steamboat, 
the  invaders  set  her  on  fire,  towed  her  into  the  current  of  the  stream 
and  sent  her  flaming  over  Niagara  Falls.  This  outrage  everywhere 
excited  the  deepest  indignation.  In  the  border  counties,  especially, 
the  people  were  almost  in  a  frenzy  of  passion. 

Three  years  after  this  occurrence,  in  the  winter  of  1840,  a  citizen 
of  Canada,  named  Alexander  M'Leod,  while  on  a  visit  to  Nia- 
gara county,  was  said  to  have  boasted  that  he  was  an  active  mem- 
ber of  the  party  which  destroyed  the  Caroline.  As  he  was  known 
to  be  a  warm  loyalist,  the  assertion  was  readily  believed.  He  was 
arrested  on  the  charge  of  arson,  and  committed  to  jail.  In  due 
course  of  law  he  was  subsequently  indicted  for  that  crime,  and 
detained  for  trial.  Upon  this  the  British  minister  at  Washington, 
Mr.  Fox,  made  a  reclamation  on  Mr.  Van  Buren,  then  president 
of  the  United  States,  in  behalf  of  the  prisoner.  He  insisted  that 
the  destruction  of  the  Caroline  was  an  act  of  war,  for  which  the 
British  government  should  be  held  responsible,  and  not  a  private 
individual.  Hence  he  protested  against  the  trial  of  M'Leod,  and 
demanded  his  release  from  imprisonment.  The  president  did  not 
assent  to  the  position  of  Mr.  Fox ;  he  maintained  that  the  act  was 
a  violation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  New  York,  and  of  the  United 
States  in  time  of  peace.  Even  assuming  the  views  of  Mr.  Fox  to 
be  correct,  the  matter  belonged  to  the  courts  of  New  York  for 
judicial  examination,  with  which  the  federal  government  could 
not  interfere. 

The  decision  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  immediately  communicated 
to  Gov.  Seward,  while  Mr.  Fox,  on  the  other  hand,  submitted  the 
subject  for  instruction  to  his  government  at  home.  Gov.  Seward 
promptly  and  dispassionately  replied  to  the  president  accepting  his 
decision  on  the  part  of  New  York.  This  reply  did  not  reach  Wash- 
ington until  after  the  4th  of  March,  1841,  when  the  administra- 


THE    M'LEOD   CASE.  11 

tion  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  Gen.  Harrison.  The  affair  was 
accordingly  entrusted  to  Mr.  "Webster,  the  secretary  of  state  under 
the  new  president. 

Meantime  Gov.  Seward  had  dispatched  the  attorney-general 
of  the  state,  Hon.  "Willis  Hall,  to  Niagara,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain the  facts  relative  to  the  transaction.  The  result  of  the 
investigation  convinced  the  governor  that  the  evidence  was  insuf- 
ficient to  sustain  the  indictment,  as  it  appeared  that  M'Leod  was 
not  even  on  the  American  side  of  the  river  during  the  night  on 
which  the  Caroline  was  destroyed. 

Mr.  Fox  was  instructed  by  his  government  to  insist  on  the 
positions  which  he  had  assumed.  He  accordingly  demanded  the 
surrender  of  M'Leod,  menacing  the  president  with  hostilities  in 
case  of  non-compliance.  In  reply  to  Mr.  Fox,  Gen.  Harrison  con- 
ceded that  M'Leod  could  not  be  held  to  trial  for  the  alleged  offence, 
thus  confirming  the  views  of  the  British  government.  This  de- 
cision was  communicated  to  Gov.  Seward,  in  a  letter  from  the 
secretary  of  state,  through  Mr.  Crittenden,  the  attorney-general  of 
the  United  States,  who  announced  the  wish  of  the  president  that 
a  nolle  prosequi  should  be  entered,  and  a  stop  put  to  further  pro- 
ceedings. Mr.  Crittenden  was  dispatched  by  the  president  to 
Niagara  county,  with  directions  to  appear  in  court  in  behalf  of 
M'Leod,  and  to  urge  upon  Gov.  Seward  the  entering  of  a  nolle 
prosequi.  In  conversing  upon  the  subject,  Mr.  Crittenden  inform- 
ed Gov.  Seward,  that  Great  Britain  would  declare  war  against  the 
United  States  unless  the  surrender  of  M'Leod  took  place.  It  fully 
appeared,  however,  on  further  explanation,  the  retaliation  threat- 
ened by  Great  Britain  was  made  contingent  not  on  the  detention, 
nor  on  the  trial,  nor  even  on  the  conviction  of  M'Leod,  but  on 
his  execution.  This  view  was  sustained  by  the  correspondence 
with  Mr.  Fox.  Gov.  Seward  then  informed  Mr.  Crittenden 
of  the  course  he  should  pursue.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  not  pro- 
bable that  M'Leod  would  be  convicted,  as  there  was  no  proof  of 
his  guilt — but  if  convicted,  he  could  not  be  executed  without  the 
governor's  consent ;  and  inasmuch  as  both  governments  agreed 
that  his  conviction  would  be  an  infringement  of  international  law, 
however  he  might  differ  from  that  opinion,  he  should  feel  bound 
to  release  the  prisoner  from  his  sentence.  He  added,  moreover, 
that  all  the  questions  belonging  to  the  case,  must  come  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  state  court,  and  therefore  it  was  necessary  for  the 


Hi  THE  M'LEOD  CASK 

trial  to  proceed.  But  this  course  involved  no  risk  of  compromis- 
ing our  relations  with  Great  Britain,  for  the  reasons  already 
stated. 

The  trial,  accordingly,  was  postponed.  Mr.  Crittenden  returned 
to  Washington  to  lay  the  views  of  Gov.  Seward  before  the  pres- 
ident and  his  cabinet.  It  was  understood  that  if  these  views  were 
not  approved,  the  subject  should  receive  further  examination.  But 
the  sudden  death  of  Gen.  Harrison,  and  the  consequent  dissolution 
of  the  cabinet,  left  the  matter  as  it  was. 

Meantime,  Joshua  A.  Spencer,  Esq.,  who  had  been  already  re- 
tained as  counsel  for  M'Leod,  was  appointed  U.  S.  district  attorney 
for  the  northern  district  of  New  York,  although  against  the  earnest 
remonstrance  of  Gov.  Seward.  At  the  succeeding  term  of  the 
supreme  court,  Mr.  Spencer  appeared  with  instructions  from  the 
president,  and  demanded  M'Leod's  discharge  from  the  indictment, 
without  the  formality  of  a  trial.  The  motion  was  resisted  by 
Willis  Hall,  Esq.,  in  behalf  of  the  state,  under  the  direction  of 
the  governor.  After  elaborate  arguments  on  both  sides,  the  de- 
mand for  M'Leod's  release  was  denied,  sustaining  the  ground  taken 
by  President  Yan  Buren  and  Gov.  Seward  in  opposition  to  the 
views  of  President  Tyler. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  war  was  suspended  not  on  the  trial,  but 
on  the  execution  of  M'Leod,  the  public  mind  was  greatly  excited 
by  the  fear  of  a  collision  with  Great  Britain.  Gov.  Seward  was 
reproached  in  many  political  and  commercial  circles,  with  pursuing 
recklessly  a  course  that  tended  to  plunge  the  two  nations  in  war. 
But  this  had  no  effect  on  his  determination.  He  was  convinced 
of  the  justice  of  his  measures,  and  resolutely  proceeded  to  carry 
them  into  effect. 

At  length  the  time  for  holding  the  court  arrived.  It  was  con- 
vened at  Utica,  remote  from  the  immediate  scene  of  excitement. 
On  trial  before  a  learned  and  impartial  judge,  M'Leod  was  acquit- 
ted for  want  of  evidence  that  he  was  concerned  in  the  outrage. 
He  was  then  sent  into  the  British  territory  by  Gov.  Seward, 
under  an  escort,  and  safely  delivered  on  the  north  side  of  the 
Niagara  river. 

This  critical  transaction  affords  a  fresh  illustration  of  Gov.  Sew- 
ard's  firmness  and  sagacity.  Had  he  listened  to  the  advisers 
whose  fears  dictated  to  their  judgment,  and  followed  the  cowardly 
policy  of  President  Tyler,  he  would  have  disgraced  both  the  state 


ENLARGEMENT  OF  THE  ERIE  CANAL.  liii 

and  the  nation  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  But  his  bold  and  manly 
course  sustained  the  honor  of  the  country.  The  fortunate  con- 
clusion of  the  affair  restored  the  public  mind  to  tranquillity,  and 
strengthened  the  administration  of  the  state  in  the  esteem  of  the 
people.* 

The  Erie  and  Champlain  canals  were  completed  in  1825.  This 
great  enterprise  of  internal  improvements  had  been  brought  to  a 
prosperous  completion  by  De  Witt  Clinton,  against  the  strenuous 
opposition  of  the  Albany  regency.  But  even  before  these  works 
were  finished,  it  was  seen  that  they  could  not  attain  the  objects  of 
their  construction  without  the  addition  of  lateral  canals,  connect- 
ing with  the  Susquehanna  and  other  rivers  on  the  south,  and  with 
lake  Ontario  on  the  north.  The  Erie  canal  was  but  forty  feet  wide 
and  four  feet  deep.  It  was  soon  evident,  that  instead  of  a  canal 
of  such  limited  capacity,  a  ship  canal  was  necessary  to  unite  the 
navigation  of  the  lakes  with  that  of  Hudson  river.  As  early  as 
1835,  it  was  found  necessary  to  replace  the  locks  and  other  struc- 
tures of  the  Erie  canal.  At  the  same  time,  the  state  debt  incurred 
in  its  construction,  and  that  of  the  Champlain  canal,  had  been  vir- 
tually paid.  Under  these  favorable  circumstances,  the  legislature 
voted  the  enlargement  of  the  Erie  canal  on  a  scale  to  be  fixed  by 
the  canal  board.  The  scale  adopted  was  seventy  feet  wide  and 
seven  feet  deep,  with  double  instead  of  single  locks,  as  before  used. 
But  the  act  limited  the  expenditures  for  the  enlargement  to  the 
annual  surplus  of  the  tolls  after  deducting  a  large  amount  for  the 
general  purposes  of  the  state  treasury. 

In  1836,  the  construction  of  the  Genessee  Yalley  and  the  Black 
River  canals  was  decided  on  by  the  legislature.  These  works 
were  intended  as  branches  of  the  system  of  internal  improvements 
which  had  previously  been  completed,  including  the  Oswego, 
Seneca,  and  Cayuga  and  Crooked  Lake  and  Chenango  canals.  A 
loan  of  three  millions  of  dollars  had  been  made,  during  the  same 
year,  to  the  New  York  and  Erie  Railroad  Company,  for  the  aid  of 
their  enterprise.  The  next  year  saw  the  progress  of  all  these  works, 
while  the  canal  commissioners  recommended  a  more  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  enlargement  of  the  Erie  Canal.  The  recom- 
mendation was  urgently  renewed  by  Gov.  Marcy  and  the  canal 
commissioners  in  1838.  But  the  state  was  then  suffering  from  a 
commercial  revulsion.  The  comptroller,  Mr.  Flagg,  indirectly 

*  See  Correspondence,  Vol.  II.  pp.  547-586. 


liv  PANIC  AMONG  CAPITALISTS. 

opposed  the  recommendations,  in  a  report  insisting  on  the  neces- 
sity of  taxation  for  the  support  of  the  treasury.  This  report  was 
answered  by  Hon.  Samuel  B.  Buggies,  chairman  of  the  committee 
of  ways  and  means  in  the  assembly,  who  showed  that  the  increase 
of  tolls  on  the  canals  would  sustain  a  loan  of  thirty  millions  of 
dollars,  reimbursing  it  in  twenty  years,  or  of  forty  millions  of  dol- 
lars, reimbursing  it  in  twenty-eight  years.  In  accordance  with 
this  estimate,  the  legislature,  in  1838,  made  an  appropriation  of 
four  millions  of  dollars  for  the  prosecution  of  the  enlargement, 
and  authorized  the  loan  of  eight  hundred  thousand  dollars  on  the 
credit  of  the  state,  in  aid  of  the  Central  and  other  railroads. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  internal  improvements  in  the  state, 
when  Mr.  Seward  entered  upon  the  executive  office  on  the  first  of 
January,  1839.  The  state  debt  was  then  eleven  millions  of  dollars ; 
but  there  were  four  millions  of  dollars  in  the  treasury  available  for 
the  public  works,  reducing  the  actual  debt  to  about  seven  millions 
of  dollars.  Gov.  Seward  vigorously  followed  up  the  legislative 
policy  of  1838.  He  recommended  that  measures  should  be 
adopted  to  secure  the  enlargement  of  the  Erie  Canal,  and  the 
completion  of  the  lateral  canals,  before  the  year  1845. 

The  report  of  Mr.  Flagg,  the  comptroller,  who  retired  on  the 
coming  in  of  the  whig  administration,  presented  an  alarming  pic- 
ture of  debt,  taxation  and  bankruptcy,  as  the  consequences  of  per- 
severance in  the  public  works.  Mr.  Flagg  was  supported  by  the 
opposition  party  in  the  legislature  and  throughout  the  state,  while 
Gov.  Seward  was  sustained  by  the  whigs  with  great  unanimity. 

To  increase  the  embarrassments  of  the  whig  administration, 
and  to  shake  the  public  confidence  in  the  ability  of  the  state  to 
complete  the  system  in  which  it  was  engaged,  it  was  now  dis- 
covered that  the  canal  commissioners  who  had  recommended  the 
new  enterprises  had  made  too  low  an  estimate  of  their  cost,  which, 
instead  of  fifteen  millions  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand 
dollars,  for  the  enlargement  of  the  Erie  and  the  construction  of 
the  Genessee  Valley  and  the  Black  Eiver  canals,  would  amount 
to  thirty  millions  four  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  dollars. 

The  people  were  alarmed  by  this  unexpected  announcement. 
Oppressed  by  pecuniary  difficulties  in  every  department  of  busi- 
ness, the  public  was  divided  in  opinion.  The  whigs  maintained 
the  wisdom  and  necessity  of  completing  the  public  works  in  spite 
of  the  errors  of  the  estimate.  But  the  opposing  party  condemned 


SUSPENSION  OF  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS.  lv 

the  policy  in  very  decided  terms.  They  predicted  an  insupport- 
able burden  of  taxation,  and  ultimate  repudiation  as  its  inevitable 
consequence.  This  was  the  great  issue  between  the  two  parties 
during  the  whole  of  Gov.  Seward's  administration. 

A  crisis  at  length  came.  The  failure  of  Pennsylvania, 
Michigan,  Illinois,  Mississippi,  Maryland,  and  other  states  which 
had  largely  engaged  in  schemes  of  internal  improvement,  produced 
in  1841  a  general  depreciation  of  American  credit  in  Europe.  The 
stocks  of  New  York,  which  had  been  pledged  abroad,  were  re- 
turned, glutting  the  market  in  our  commercial  cities.  The  capi- 
talists became  alarmed.  With  a  view  to  prevent  a  further  decline 
in  securities,  they  combined  with  the  opposition  party  against  the 
prosecution  of  the  public  works.  Their  measures  were  met  by 
Gov.  Seward  with  decided  resistance.  In  his  messages  to  the 
legislature,  he  forcibly  remonstrated  against  suspending  the  im- 
provements already  commenced.  Maintaining  that,  in  spite  of  the 
fall  of  public  credit  abroad,  the  true  policy  of  the  state  was 
unchanged,  he  clearly  set  forth  the  evils  that  would  ensue  from 
the  abandonment  of  the  enterprise.  But  it  was  all  in  vain. 
Political  managers  took  advantage  of  the  prevailing  panic  to  coun- 
teract the  policy  of  the  governor.  The  moneyed  interest  chimed  in. 
His  sagacious  admonitions  were  unheeded,  and  the  legislature  in 

1842,  put  a  stop  to  the  progress  of  internal  improvement. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  public  affairs  on  the  1st  of  January, 

1843,  when  Gov.  Seward  resigned  the  administration  of  the  state 
into  the  hands  of  his  successor.     A  convention  was  called  in  1846 
to  revise  the  constitution,  containing  a  large  democratic  majority; 
it  incorporated  provisions  in  the  constitution,  prohibiting  the  en- 
largement of  the  public  works,  except  under  stringent,  and  as  it  was 
thought  at  the  time,  impracticable  conditions.     Still  the  canals, 
exceeding  the  largest  estimates  of  the  late  whig  administration, 
furnished  the  means  for  a  gradual  prosecution  of  the  contemplated 
improvements  until  1850.     The  whigs  being  in  power  at  that  time, 
it  was  ascertained  that  the  sum  of  $9,000,000  would  suffice  to 
complete  the  public  works  on  the  original  plan.     It  was  also  ascer- 
tained that  this  object  could  be  accomplished  without  pledging  the 
credit  of  the  state,  by  a  simple  transfer  of  the  surplus  tolls  of  the 
canals  for  a  short  term  of  years.    Daniel  Webster,  John  0.  Spencer, 
and  other  eminent  jurists,  to  whom  the  question  had  been  sub- 
mitted, expressed  the  opinion  that  such  a  measure  would  be  in 


Ivi  RAILROADS. 

accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution.  After  a  vehe- 
ment party  struggle,  the  legislature  of  1851  decided  on  its  adop- 
tion. The  adverse  party  brought  the  question  before  the  state 
courts,  which  finally  declared  that  the  law  was  unconstitutional. 
Still,  few  can  now  doubt  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  maintained  by 
Gov.  Seward.*  It  only  remains  to  determine  how  the  constitu- 
tional prohibitions  of  1846,  as  expounded  by  the  court  of  appeals, 
shall  be  modified  so  as  to  allow  the  speedy  attainment  of  the  great 
object. 

The  agency  of  Gov.  Seward  in  behalf  of  internal  improvements 
was  by  no  means  limited  to  the  canal  system.  Upon  his  accession 
to  the  executive  office,  railroads  were  a  recent  invention.  They 
had  been  adopted  only  to  a  comparatively  small  extent  in  any  part 
of  the  United  States.  They  still  met  with  a  strenuous  opposition 
from  many  of  the  leading  New  York  politicians.  The  only  rail- 
road in  the  state  were  the  Harlem,  eight  miles  in  length,  and  Albany 
and  Utica,  ninety-five  miles  in  length.  Great  efibrts  had  been 
made  to  extend  the  latter  road  from  Utica  towards  the  West ;  but 
popular  prejudice  and  pecuniary  embarrassment  were  too  strong 
for  the  corporations.  The  construction  of  the  New  York  and  Erie 
railroad  had  been  abandoned ;  but  Gov.  Seward  from  the  first  was 
an  earnest  advocate  of  the  improvement.  With  almost  prophetic 
sagacity,  he  constantly  predicted  the  success  of  this  new  mode  of 
locomotion.  His  zeal  in  its  behalf  excited  alarm  in  the  conserva- 
tive, commercial  and  political  circles. 

In  his  annual  message  in  1839,f  he  expressed  himself  in  the  fol- 
lowing words : — 

"  This  •wonderful  agent  (steam)  has  achieved,  almost  unobserved,  a  new  triumph,  which 
is  destined  to  effect  incalculable  results  in  the  social  system.  This  is  its  application  to 
locomotipn  upon  the  land.  Time  and  money  are  convertible.  Husbandly  of  the  one  is 
economy  of  the  other,  and  either  is  equivalent  to  the  economy  of  labor.  Railroads  effect 
a  saving  of  time  and  money  ;  and  notwithstanding  all  the  incredulity  and  opposition  they 
encounter,  they  will  henceforth  be  among  the  common  auxiliaries  of  enterprise.  Hap- 
pily it  is  not  in  our  power  to  fetter  the  energies  of  other  states,  although  we  may  repress 
our  own.  This  useful  invention,  like  all  others,  will  be  adopted  by  them,  although  it 
gain  no  favor  from  us ;  and  they  who  are  willing  that  New  York  shall  have  no  railroads, 
must  be  ready  to  see  all  the  streams  of  prosperity  seek  other  channels,  and  our  state  sink 
into  the  condition  of  Venice,  prostrate  and  powerless,  among  the  monuments  of  her  ear- 
lier greatness.  A  glance  at  the  map  would  render  obvious  the  utility  of  three  great 
lines  of  communication  by  railroads,  between  the  Hudson  river  and  the  borders  of  the 
state.  One  of  these  would  traverse  several  of  the  northern  counties,  and  reach  with  its 

*  See  VoL  IL  p.  183-212.  f  See  YoL  II.  p.  183. 


NEW  YORK  AND  ERIE  RAILROAD.  Iv 

branches  to  lake  Ontario  and  the  St.  Lawrence.  A  second,  keeping  the  vicinity  of  the 
Erie  canal,  would  connect  Albany  and  Buffalo.  A  third  would  stretch  through  the 
southern  counties,  from  New  York  to  Lake  Erie." 

These  confident  predictions  have  since  become  magnificent  reali- 
ties. In  his  messages  and  speeches,  Gov.  Seward  also  urged  the  con- 
struction of  a  railroad  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson,  from  New  York 
to  Albany.  Indeed,  they  often  manifest  not  a  little  impatience 
with  the  skepticism  and  want  of  public  spirit  which  discouraged 
the  undertaking  of  such  an  important  enterprise. 

Nor  has  the  devotion  of  Gov.  Seward  to  the  cause  of  internal 
improvements  been  confined  in  its  operation  to  the  state  of  New 
York.  He  has  never  failed  to  cherish  a  deep  interest  in  what- 
ever was  adapted  to  increase  the  business  advantages,  and  promote 
the  permanent  welfare  of  the  people  in  every  portion  of  the  Union. 

In  a  speech  delivered  at  Elmira  in  1850,  on  the  completion  of 
the  New  York  and  Erie  railroad,  Gov.  Seward  related  some 
curious  personal  reminiscences,  in  regard  to  the  progress  of  inter- 
nal improvements.  The  chef  d'ozuvre  of  his  college  life,  he  re- 
marked, was  an  essay  prepared  in  1820  against  the  Erie  canal,  then 
in  course  of  construction  under  the  auspices  of  De  Witt  Clinton. 
He  attempted  to  prove  that  the  canal  could  never  be  completed, 
or  if  completed,  that  it  would  be  the  ruin  of  the  state.  In  five 
years  from  that  time  the  canal  was  finished,  and  boats  placed  on 
its  surface,  from  tide  water  to  Lake  Erie.  Just  nineteen  years 
after  the  production  of  that  essay  he  found  himself  in  the  place  of 
De  "Witt  Clinton,  urging  the  enlargement  of  the  canal  to  double 
its  original  capacity,  and  the  construction  of  three  lines  of  railroad 
between  substantially  the  same  termini  to  supply  the  deficiency  of 
the  canal  for  transporting  the  commerce  of  the  state.  These  recom- 
mendations were  regarded  by  the  public  as  even  still  more  visionary 
than  the  schemes  of  Gov.  Clinton  had  been  in  his  estimation.  But 
notwithstanding  the  popular  incredulity,  on  retiring  from  office  at 
the  end  of  four  years,  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  aggre- 
gate length  of  the  railroads  of  the  state  increased  from  one  hun- 
dred to  eight  hundred  miles. 

As  we  write  these  lines  (1852)  we  see  the  whole  stupendous 
scheme  recommended  by  Gov.  Seward  on  the  eve  of  completion, 
in  spite  of  commercial  and  political  obstacles. 

The  directors  of  the  New  York  and  Erie  railroad  company,  in 


Iviii  EXERCISE  OF  THE  PARDONING  POWER. 

token  of  their  appreciation  of  Gov.  Steward's  services,  presented 
him  with  a  formal  vote  of  thanks  on  his  retirement  from  office, 
with  a  ticket  elegantly  engraved  on  silver,  for  the  free  passage  of 
himself  and  family  on  the  road  during  life. 

We  have  already  alluded  to  the  exercise  of  the  pardoning  power 
by  Gov.  Seward.  As  the  subject  is  one  of  such  deep  interest,  we 
will  here  more  fully  illustrate  the  principles  which  guided  his 
course  in  this  respect.*  Combining  a  natural  generosity  and  ten- 
derness of  feeling  with  a  lofty  sense  of  justice,  he  could  not  per- 
mit his  sympathy  with  the  unfortunate  to  weaken  his  energy  in 
the  execution  of  laws,  which  were  intimately  connected  with  the 
order  and  safety  of  society.  He  allowed  no  conviction,  ascertained 
to  be  unjust,  to  stand  on  any  pretence. 

An  insane  man  who  had  committed  homicide  in  Bensselaer 
county,  under  circumstances  of  revolting  cruelty,  was  induced  by 
the  court,  the  public  prosecutor  and  his  own  counsel,  to  plead  guilty 
to  an  indictment  for  murder.  He  was  sentenced  to  be  executed, 
under  an  arrangement  between  them,  that  in  consequence  of  thus 
pleading,  the  sentence  of  death  should  be  commuted  to  confine- 
ment in  the  state  prison  for  life.  The  court  and  counsel  urged  the 
governor  to  adopt  that  course,  on  the  ground  that  the  public  safety 
and  public  opinion  both  required  the  confinement  of  the  offender. 
The  governor  answered  that  a  man  too  insane  to  be  executed,  was 
too  insane  to  be  imprisoned  for  life,  and  discharged  the  offender 
at  once. 

'No  woman,  not  abandoned  to  vice  and  crime,  was  suffered  to 
endure  the  full  punishment  prescribed  by  the  law.  And  it  must 
be  a  pleasant  recollection  to  Gov.  Seward,  that  in  no  instance  was 
a  woman  so  pardoned  ever  afterwards  convicted  of  crime.  Juve- 
nile delinquents  were  pardoned  for  first  offences  not  very  atrocious. 
But  in  these  cases,  preliminary  arrangements  were  made  through 
the  agency  of  their  friends,  for  their  removal  from  the  scenes  of 
their  temptations,  and  their  establishment  in  pursuits  favorable  to 
their  reformation. 

The  possession  of  social  advantages,  instead  of  aiding  offenders 
to  procure  pardon,  was  always  regarded  as  an  objection.  On  the 
other  hand,  great  allowance  was  made  for  ignorance,  orphanage, 
or  social  neglect,  as  presenting  incentives  to  crime. 

In  the  well  known  case  of  Benjamin  Eathbun,f  whose  forgeries 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  615.  {  See  Vol.  II.  p.  630. 


INTERESTING  PARDON  CASES.  lix 

were  understood  to  have  amounted  to  the  sum  of  one  million  five 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  pardon  was  earnestly  demanded  on  the 
ground  of  extenuating  circumstances,  and  the  social  position  of  the 
criminal.  His  case  was  warmly  pressed.  Petitions  for  a  commutation 
of  punishment  were  signed  by  more  than  two  thousand  persons, 
of  all  parties  and  ranks.  But  closing  his  eyes  to  every  considera- 
tion but  the  claims  of  justice  and  the  integrity  of  the  law,  and 
believing  their  vindication  in  such  a  case,  to  be  highly  important, 
Gov.  Seward  steadfastly  refused  all  entreaties  to  extend  pardon, 
although  urged  by  strong  political  and  personal  friends.  At  the 
same  time,  pardons  were  granted  to  ignorant  and  obscure  persons 
who  had  committed  forgeries  and  larcenies  for  trivial  amounts, 
under  the  excuse  of  absolute  want,  in  their  own  case,  or  that  of 
their  families.  The  discrimination  against  John  0.  Colt,*  whose 
case  excited  deep  interest  at  the  time,  proceeded  upon  similar 
grounds. 

Nor  did  Gov.  Seward  allow  the  pardoning  power  in  his  hands, 
to  become  converted  to  purposes  of  oppression.  It  is  gratifying 
to  know,  that  while  the  popular  approbation  of  his  administration 
in  other  respects,  owing  generally  to  political  rancor,  was  delayed 
until  the  prejudices  and  passions  of  the  day  had  subsided,  no  such 
delay  occurred  in  regard  to  his  conduct  in  the  matter  of  pardons. 
His  acts  in  this  department  of  his  duty,  generally  received  imme- 
diate and  wide-spread  commendation.  But  what  probably  was 
esteemed  by  him  as  more  important,  was  the  approving  testimony 
of  his  own  mind.  We  can  hardly  conceive  of  a  higher  pleasure 
than  he  must  have  experienced  in  writing  to  Catharine  Wilkins,f 
(a  convict  he  had  pardoned,)  unless  it  was  surpassed  by  his  satis- 
faction in  learning  how  effectual  the  letter  had  been  in  saving 
her  to  wrhom  it  was  addressed.  He  no  doubt  enjoyed  a  similar 
pleasure  in  the  surprise  exhibited  by  a  southern  slaveholder,  who 
applied  for  the  pardon  of  his  slave,  convicted  of  crime  in  JSTew 
York,  and  sent  to  the  state  prison  at  Sing  Sing.  The  master 
urged  his  petition  on  the  ground  that  it  would  relieve  the  state  of 
the  expense  of  the  slave's  imprisonment ;  and  he  presented  the 
record  of  a  case  where  a  slave  had  been  thus  pardoned  by  one  of 
the  governor's  predecessors.  Gov.  Seward  answered  that  notwith- 
standing the  precedent,  he  did  not  think  it  right  to  pervert  a 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  646.  f  See  Vol.  II.  p.  618. 


Ix  EXERCISE  OF  THE  VETO  POWER 

power  entrusted  to  him  for  purposes  of  humanity,  to  accomplish 
an  act  of  oppression. 

The  same  independence  of  character  was  manifested  in  the  case 
of  James  "Watson  Webb.*     Col.  "Webb  had  fought  a  duel  with 
lion.  Thomas  F.  Marshall,  in  the  state  of  Delaware,  and  was  con- 
victed under  a  law  of  this  state,  passed  as  early  as  1817,  and  sen- 
tenced to  the  state  prison.     There  had  been  no  attempt  to  enforce 
this  law,  except  in  two  cases  which   occurred  immediately  after 
its  passage,  and   in   these   instances,   the    offenders  were   par- 
doned by  the  governor  who  then  filled  the  executive  chair.     Af- 
terward the  law  became  obsolete,  for  want  of  public  opinion  to 
sustain  it.     Duelling  was  still  practiced  in  the  state  of  New  York, 
notwithstanding  this  law  was  on  the  pages  of  the  statute-book, 
and  that  too  by  men  enjoying  the  highest  distinctions  and  honors, 
including  De  Witt  Clinton  himself.     It  is  easy  to  see  that  if  the 
offender  in  the  duel  with  Marshall,  had  been  a  political  editor 
opposed  to  Gov.  Seward,  the  enforcing  of  the  conviction  under 
such  circumstances,  would  have  been  regarded  as  an  act  of  per- 
sonal and  political  retaliation.  No  one  can  suppose  he  would  have 
enforced  it  under  such  circumstances.     But   Col.   Webb,   the 
offender  in  this  case,  was  a  personal  and  political  friend  of  Gov. 
Seward's,  and  his  editorial  controversies  had  made  many  relent- 
less enemies.     Col.  Webb  having,  like  many  others,  made  himself 
liable  to'  the  penalties  of  this  law,  probably  without  being  aware 
of  its  existence,  those  enemies,  unconscious,  without  doubt,  of  the 
motives  which  influenced  them,  demanded  the  rigorous  applica- 
tion of  the   obsolete  statute.    The  governor  showed,  in  this  in- 
stance, that  he  was  not  afraid  to  do  in  the  case  of  a  friend,  what 
all  men  who  knew  his  impartiality  and  magnanimity,  would  have 
expected  him  to  do  towards  an  adversary.     He  pardoned  Col. 
Webb.     In  the  case  of  Kathbun,  he  would  not  pardon,  because, 
among  other  principal  reasons,  the  offender  had  moved  in  high 
circles  and  had  powerful  friends.     In  the  case  of  Webb,  he  par- 
doned notwithstanding  he  occupied  an  elevated  position  and  was 
surrounded  by  influential  friends.     In  both  instances  he  showed 
his  coolness  and  courage  in  resisting  popular  clamor,  when  satis- 
fied that  justice  demanded  such  resistance. 

Gov.  Seward's  principles  in  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power,  may 
be  learned  by  reference  to  his  messagesf  delivered  on  the  several 

*  See  VoL  IL  p.  661.  f  See  VoL  IL  pp.  374,  379,  426,  &c. 


EXERCISE  OF  THE  VETO  POWER.  Ixi 

occasions  when  he  assumed  its  exercise.     The  D'Hauteville  case 
will  serve  as  an  illustration. 

A  lady  of  large  wealth,  a  resident  of  Boston,  while  travelling 
in  Europe,  had  married  a  French  gentleman,  by  the  name  of 
D'Hauteville,  of  greater  respectability  than  of  fortune.  One 
child  was  the  fruit  of  this  connexion.  She  separated  from  her 
husband,  and  returned  to  America,  in  1846,  bringing  her  child 
with  her.  D'Hauteville  appeared  in  Boston,  and  demanded  her 
return  to  Europe,  insisting,  in  case  of  refusal,  on  the  custody  of 
his  child.  The  friends  of  the  lady,  designing  that  she  should  take 
refuge  in  the  state  of  New  York,  procured  a  hurried  passage  of 
an  act  by  the  legislature  of  this  state,  then  in  session,  providing 
that  where  an  American  woman  should  be  married  to  a  foreigner 
who  should  propose  to  require  her  with  his  children,  to  remove  to 
Europe,  the  Court  of  Chancery  should  have  power  to  interpose 
and  take  charge  of  the  children  and  their  fortune.  A  veto  from 
Gov.  Seward  arrested  the  passage  of  this  bill,*  upon  the  ground 
that  no  nation  could  wisely  or  justly  make  a  discrimination  in  its 
laws  regulating  parental  or  other  domestic  relations,  on  the  ground 
of  the  alienage  of  either  of  the  parties — a  decision  the  wisdom 
and  soundness  of  which  few  can  doubt. 

With  the  return  of  an  opposition  to  the  legislature,  came,  of 
course,  a  desire  for  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  enjoyment 
of  the  state  printing.  An  act  was  passed  removing  Thurlow 
Weed  from  the  office  of  state  printer,  which  he  held,  under  a 
contract  authorized  by  law.  Gov.  Seward  interposed  his  vetof 
promptly,  on  the  ground  of  the  inhibition  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  of  the  passage  of  laws  by  the  states,  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts. 

But  while  he  thus  exercised  the  veto  power  to  arrest  inconsider- 
ate and  unconstitutional  legislation,  he  declined  interfering  in 
cases  of  pure  legislative  discretion,  as  has  been  seen  in  his  action 
on  the  New  York  registry  bill,  and  in  his  consent,  against  his  own 
opinions,  to  the  act  of  1842,  suspending  the  public  works.  In 
such  cases,  however,  he  insisted  on  the  right  of  stating  the  grounds 
of  his  qualified  approval  of  bills,  in  the  message  communicating 
the  executive  assent.  It  must  be  left  to  impartial  public  opinion, 
free  from  the  bias  of  temporary  excitement,  to  decide  between 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  374.  f  See  VoL  II.  p.  426. 


Ixii  SLAVERY  AND  ITS  INCIDENTS. 

him  and  the  legislature,  on  their  refusal  to  receive  such  messages 
and  enter  them  on  their  journal.* 

In  his  administration  of  the  state  government,  Gov.  Seward  took 
a  firm  and  dignified  attitude  against  the  institution  of  slavery. 
He  labored  to  clear  the  statute-books  of  every  provision  which 
authorized  holding  a  man  in  slavery,  in  any  form,  or  on  any  pre- 
text. His  devotion  to  the  principles  of  freedom  at  length  accom- 
plished the  work,  which  had  been  so  nobly  commenced  by  the 
admirable  statesman,  John  Jay,  in  1795.  The  law,  which  per- 
mitted a  master  travelling  through  the  state  with  his  slaves  to 
retain  them  for  the  space  of  nine  months,  was  repealed  through 
his  influence.  It  was  this  repeal  by  which  the  slaves  in  the  recent 
Lemon  case,  who  had  been  brought  from  Virginia  to  the  city  of 
New  York  in  order  to  be  shipped  to  Texas,  were  saved  from  per- 
petual bondage. 

Gov.  Seward  also  procured  the  passage  of  an  act  by  the  legis- 
lature, allowing  the  benefit  of  a  jury  trial  to  persons  claimed  as 
fugitive  slaves.  He  defended  this  right  with  his  usual  fervid 
eloquence,  and  it  was  mainly  through  his  efforts  that  it  was  incor- 
porated in  the  policy  of  the  state.  At  a  subsequent  period,  when 
the  fugitive  slave  bill  was  debated  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
he  labored  to  have  a  similar  provision  engrafted  in  its  details. 

An  act  was  also  passed,  at  his  instance,  prohibiting  state  offi- 
cers from  participating  in  actions  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves,  and  denying  the  use  of  the  public  jails  for  their  detention. 
He  held  that  these  were  actions  under  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  should,  therefore,  be  executed  only  by 
the  United  States  marshals  and  judges  in  United  States  courts, 
and  that  imprisonments  they  might  order  should  be  in  United 
States  prisons,  if  such  could  be  found.  Although  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  pronounced  these  laws  to  be  unconsti- 
tutional, they  were  clearly  founded  on  the  eternal  principles  of 
right  and  justice.  They  will  form  an  enduring  memorial  of  the 
wise  humanity  of  Gov.  Seward,  and  of  his  heart-felt  devotion  to 
the  spirit  of  freedom,  as  embodied  in  the  declaration  of  inde- 
pendence. • 

It  was  through  his  agency,  moreover,  that  a  law  was  enacted  in 
1840,  for  the  recovery  of  free  colored  citizens  of  New  York,  who 
should  be  kidnapped  into  slavery.  This  law  authorized  the  gov- 

*  See  VoL  IL  p.  411. 


THE  VIRGINIA  CONTROVERSY.  Ixiii 

ernor  to  employ  an  agent  for  the  aid  of  such  persons,  securing 
their  restoration  to  liberty.  It  was  under  the  provisions  of  this  act, 
that  H.  B.  Northrup,  Esq.,  of  Washington  county,  N.  Y.,  in  Jan., 
1853,  procured  the  liberty  of  Solomon,  a  colored  man,  long  a 
member  of  his  family,  who  twelve  years  ago  had  been  inveigled 
to  the  city  of  Washington  and  there  kidnapped  and  sold  into 
slavery. 

Among  Gov.  Seward's  last  official  recommendations  to  the  legis- 
lature, was  an  amendment  of  the  constitution  of  the  state,  by  which 
the  freehold  qualification  required  of  citizens  of  the  African  race, 
as  a  condition  of  exercising  the  right  of  suffrage,  should  be  abolish- 
ed. He  based  this  recommendation  on  the  principles  of  natural 
justice.  And  he  urged  the  necessity  of  granting  the  right  of  suf- 
frage to  every  class  of  persons  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  and 
the  safety  with  which  it  could  be  thus  extended  where  a  system  of 
universal  education  had  already  been  established.  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  on  the  revision  of  the  constitution,  in  1846,  this  re- 
commendation was  found  to  have  anticipated  public  sentiment  for 
an  indefinite  period  of  time.  But  that  Gov.  Seward's  recommen- 
dation on  this  point  will  yet  be  adopted  and  incorporated  into  the 
constitution  of  the  state,  there  cannot  be  a  doubt. 

The  course  of  Gov.  Seward  in  regard  to  these  measures  was  an 
agreeable  surprise  to  the  abolitionists,  who  had  failed  to  obtain 
any  pledge  from  him  during  the  preliminary  canvass.  His  noble 
position  in  the  "Virginia  Case,"  was  adapted  to  win  the  admiration 
of  every  lover  of  freedom.* 

The  outlines  of  this  case  may  be  briefly  given  as  follows.  In 
1839,  a  vessel  from  Norfolk,  Ya.,  on  arriving  near  the  port  of  New 
York  was  found  to  contain  a  slave,  who  had  secreted  himself  in  the 
hold.  He  was  taken  and  conveyed  back  to  bondage.  Three 
colored  seamen  belonging  to  the  vessel,  who  had  expressed  their 
sympathy  with  the  fugitive,  were  charged  with  having  conveyed 
him  out  of  the  state  by  stealth.  Affidavits  were  made  to  that 
effect  in  Norfolk.  A  requisition,  based  on  these  affidavits,  was 
made  by  the  lieutenant  governor  of  Virginia  upon  the  governor  of 
New  York,  for  the  surrender  of  the  accused,  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  act 
of  Congress  of  1793,  concerning  fugitives  from  justice.  Before 
the  requisition  was  presented  to  Gov.  Seward,  the  parties  had  been 

*  See  "  Virginia  Controversy,"  Vol.  II.  pp.  449-516. 


Ixiv  FUGITIVES  FROM  JUSTICE 

arrested  in  the  city  of  New  York,  but  having  been  brought  before 
Robert  H.  Morris,  the  recorder  of  the  city,  on  a  writ  of  habeas 
carpus,  were  discharged  by  him  on  the  ground  of  the  insufficiency 
of  the  affidavits  to  justify  their  detention.  The  lieutenant  gover- 
nor of  Virginia,  however,  persisted  in  the  requisition,  demanding 
that  the  governor  of  New  York  should  surrender  the  persons  as 
fugitives  from  justice.  Gov.  Seward  replied  that  they  had  been 
discharged  from  arrest  in  due  course  of  law,  and  that  the  affidavits 
in  support  of  the  requisition  were  informal  and  insufficient.  At 
the  same  time  he  admitted  that  these  affidavits  could  be  replaced  by 
new  affidavits,  or  a  formal  indictment.  Disdaining,  however,  to 
stand  upon  mere  light  technicalities  in  so  grave  a  cause,  he  met 
the  question  on  the  broad  and  universal  principles  which  it  in- 
volved. He  took  the  ground,  that  the  crimes  contemplated  by  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  in  its  provisions  authorizing  the 
demand  of  fugitives  from  justice,  between  the  several  states,  were 
not  such  crimes  as  depended  on  the  arbitrary  legislation  of  a  par- 
ticular state,  but  such  as  were  mala  in  sese — crimes  which  could  be 
determined  by  some  common  standard,  as  the  concurrent  sense  of 
the  several  states — the  common  law  received  by  them  all  alike, 
or  the  universal  sentiment  of  civilized  nations.  No  state,  he  argued, 
could  force  a  requisition  upon  another  state,  founded  on  an  act 
which  was  only  criminal  through  its  own  legislation,  but  compared 
with  general  standards,  was  not  only  innocent,  but  humane  and 
praiseworthy.  Thus,  the  aiding  of  a  slave  to  escape  from  bondage 
was  in  itself  an  act  of  virtue  and  humanity.  No  statute  could 
pronounce  such  an  act  a  crime,  without  a  perversion  both  of  rea- 
son and  justice.  Still  further,  though  slavery  was  left  by  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the 
states  where  it  existed,  it  was  carefully  excluded  from  Federal  re- 
cognition. Hence  no  state  was  bound  by  the  'constitution  to  re- 
cognize slavery  or  any  of  its  incidents  in  another  state,  so  as  to 
create  an  obligation  for  the  surrendry  of  persons  charged  with 
offences  in  violation  of  laws  enacted  by  slave-holding  states  for 
the  maintenance  of  slavery.  This  reasoning  was  applicable  to  all 
cases,  and  not  alone  to  those  which  grew  out  of  slavery.  *By  the  laws 
of  New  York,  for  instance,  as  in  several  other  states,  there  was  no 
legal  imprisonment  for  debt.  But  in  Pennsylvania  this  barbarous 
custom  was  still  sanctioned  by  the  laws  ;  hence,  in  that  state,  re- 
sistance by  a  debtor  to  a  civil  officer  charged  with  process  was  a 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  Ixv 

felony.  The  governor  of  Pennsylvania  had  made  a  requisition  on 
Gov.  Seward,  under  the  Federal  constitution,  for  the  surrender  of 
a  citizen  of  New  York,  indicted  in  Pennsylvania,  for  resistance  to 
a  sheriff  charged  with  an  execution  against  his  person.  Governor 
Seward  refused  to  comply  with  the  requisition,  on  the  prin- 
ciples before  stated.  While  the  decision  was  acquiesced  in  by  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania,  Virginia  withheld  its  assent  in  the  case  pre- 
sented from  that  state. 

A  correspondence  ensued  which  continued  during  the  whole  of 
Gov.  Se ward's  administration.  The  legislature  of  Virginia  appealed 
from  the  governor  to  the  legislature  of  New  York.  The  public 
mind  was  profoundly  moved  by  this  novel  and  important  discussion. 
Although  not  made  an  affair  of  strict  party  division,  the  whig 
legislatures  of  New  York,  more  or  less  -explicitly,  sustained  the 
position  of  the  governor. 

Upon  the  election  of  an  opposition  legislature  in  1842,  the  assem- 
bly took  a  different  ground,  and  requested  Gov.  Seward  to  com- 
municate their  opinion  to  the  legislature  of  Virginia.  In  a  firm, 
but  respectful  manner,  he  declined  to  comply  with  the  request.* 
The  soundness  of  his  views  on  this  subject  received  a  striking  illus- 
tration in  subsequent  requisitions  by  the  governors  of  Louisiana 
and  Georgia,  demanding  the  surrendry  of  fugitive  slaves  on  the 
most  frivolous  pretexts  as  fugitives  from  justice ;  in  one  case,  on 
the  indictment  of  a  female  slave  for  stealing  the  gown  on  her  back, 
valued  by  the  grand  jury  wrho  found  the  indictment,  at  twelve  and 
a  half  cents :  and  in  the  other,  on  the  indictment  of  a  person  for 
stealing  a  female  slave  from  her  master,  and  stealing  the  calico 
dress  and  trinkets  worn  upon  her  person,  when  the  entire  transac- 
tion consisted  at  most  in  his  persuading  the  slave  to  make  her  es- 
cape from  bondage. 

The  state  of  Virginia,  combined  with  other  states,  resorted  to  re- 
taliatory measures  designed  to  injure  the  commerce  of  New  York. 
But  this  produced  no  change  in  the  decision  of  Gov.  Seward,  nor 
in  public  opinion  concerning  the  controversy.  The  judgment 
which  will  ultimately  be  passed  upon  his  conduct  in  this  affair  by 
the  moral  seutiment  of  mankind,  is  indicated  in  the  construction 
placed  by  the  British  ministry  on  the  article  of  the  recent  treaty 
in  regard  to  the  extradition  of  fugitives  from  justice — an  article  of 
similar  purport  to  the  extradition  article  in  the  Federal  constitu- 

*  See  Special  Message,  Vol.  II.  pp.  385-433. 
VOL.   I — E. 


Ixvi  RETIREMENT  FROM  OFFICE. 

tion.  It  was  stated  by  them  in  the  house  of  commons,  that  they 
should  not  deem  themselves  bound  to  surrender  any  person  charged 
with  a  crime  which  should  appear  to  have  been  committed  by  the 
offender  in  effecting  his  own  escape,  or  that  of  another  from  slavery. 
In  connection  with  this  subject,  it  maybe  added  that  Gov.  Seward 
always  maintained  the  unconstitutionally  of  imprisoning  colored 
citizens  of  the  free  states  in  the  slave-holding  states,  when  not 
charged  with  actual  crime.  In  case  of  such  imprisonment  of  citi- 
zens of  New  York,  he  employed  agents  at  the  expense  of  the  state 
to  obtain  their  restoration  to  freedom. 

The  condition  of  Gov.  Seward's  private  affairs,  which  had  been 
affected  by  the  general  depreciation  of  property  incident  to  the 
financial  embarrassment  of  the  country,  made  his  acceptance  of  a 
re-election  in  1840  a  matter  of  personal  sacrifice.     But  it  was 
deemed  necessary  by  his  political  friends.    His  own  mind  regarded 
.the  subject  in  a  different  light.     He  had  been  elected  by  a  dimin- 
ished majority.     Several  hundreds  of  whig  votes  were  given  for 
other  candidates.     To  him  this  was  a  proof  of  dissatisfaction  on  the 
part  of  no  inconsiderable  number  of  persons ;  many  had  been  dis- 
appointed in  their  hopes  of  office ;  others  were  alienated  by  his 
devotion  to  reform ;  his  policy  in  regard  to  universal  education 
was  greatly  misapprehended :  all  these  causes  led  him  to  doubt 
whether  a  division  of  the  party  would  not  be  produced  by  his  re- 
maining in  the  executive  chair,  although  no  one,  in  fact,  ever  pos- 
sessed a  stronger  hold  on  the  confidence  of  a  great  political  party 
than  he  did  at  that  moment.     Besides,  Gov.  Seward  foresaw  more 
clearly  than  many  of  his  friends,  the  progress  of  reaction  in  regard 
to  internal  improvements.  The  opponents  of  the  policy  were  rapid- 
ly gaining  ground ;  it  would  be  necessary,  at  another  election,  to 
present  a  candidate  to  the  whig  party  against  whom  there  was  no 
considerable  prejudice.  Accordingly,  in  Jan.,  1841,  Gov.  Seward 
announced  his  determination,  under  no  circumstances,  to  again 
become  a  candidate  for  the  executive  office.     The  announcement 
took  the  public  by  surprise,  especially  as  it  was  made  at  a  time 
when  he  was  regarded  as  having  triumphed  over  all  opposition, 
and  gained  a  firm  footing  as  a  leader  of  the  whig  party.     His  last 
annual  message  *  was  considered  the  ablest  official  production  of 
his  pen.     Nor  is  it  too  much  to  say  that  few,  if  any,  abler  docu- 
ments have  ever  issued  from  the  executive  chair  of  New  York. 

*  See  VoL  ILp.  297. 


NOMINATION  OF  MR.  CLAY.  Ixvii 

The  election  of  Gen.  Harrison  in  1840,  who  had  been  nom- 
inated for  president  in  preference  to  Mr.  Clay,  on  the  ground 
of  superior  availability,  induced  the  friends  of  the  latter  distin- 
guished leader  to  believe  that  he  would  have  been  successful  if  he 
had  received  the  nomination.  This  conviction,  which  became  almost 
universal,  produced  a  settled  determination  to  secure  Mr.  Clay's 
nomination  for  the  canvass  of  1844.  The  policy  was  to  foreclose 
the  question  by  popular  movements  throughout  the  United  States 
as  early  as  the  spring  of  1842.  Gov.  Seward  did  not  assent  to 
the  wisdom  of  the  plan.  He  yielded  his  private  views,  however, 
to  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the  whig  party.  But  he  could 
not  be  persuaded  to  place  himself  at  the  head  of  the  movement, 
with  the  prospect  of  a  re-nomination  for  governor.  On  the 
contrary,  he  frankly  pointed  out  to  his  friends  the  reasons 
against  their  course.  The  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
he  argued,  had  become  inevitable.  Under  the  excitement  pro- 
duced by  its  discussion,  the  anti-slavery  interest  had  grown  up 
in  the  state,  from  one  thousand  in  1838,  to  two  thousand  five 
hundred  in  1840,  in  opposition  to  Gen.  Harrison  and  himself, 
neither,  of  whom  was  regarded  with  special  prejudice  by  the 
political  abolitionists.  It  was  more  than  probable,  that  the  pre- 
mature nomination  of  Mr.  Clay,  who  was  already  severely  cen- 
sured by  the  abolitionists,  would  increase  their  vote  at  the  state 
election  of  1842,  from  five  thousand  to  fifteen  thousand,  at  the 
expense  of  the  whig  party.  This  would  ensure  the  loss  of  the 
state  to  the  whigs,  as  well  as  of  the  presidential  election  of  1844. 

Other  counsels,  however,  prevailed:  Gov.  Seward  persisted  in 
declining  a  re-nomination.  Mr.  Clay  was  the  avowed  candidate 
of  the  whigs  for  the  presidency.  The  result  was  the  increase  of 
the  abolition  vote  to  sixteen  thousand.  The  whigs  were,  accord- 
ingly, defeated.  Their  candidate  for  governor,  Hon.  Luther 
Bradish,  a  man  of  unexceptionable  character,  well  known  to  the 
public,  and  universally  popular,  lost  his  election  by  a  decided 
vote.  William  C.  Bouck received  a  majority  of  twenty-two  thousand, 
and  the  administration  of  the  state  reverted  to  the  hands  of  the 
opposition. 

On  the  last  day  of  Gov.  Seward's  official  term,  his  accounts  with 
the  treasury  were  definitely  settled  ;  and  on  the  first  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1843,  he  introduced  his  successor,  Gov.  Bouck,  to  the  people 
of  the  capitol,  exchanging  with  him  appropriate  courtesies  on  the 


Ixviii  RETIREMENT  FROM  OFFICE. 

occasion  of  his  inauguration.  These  courtesies,  so  well  adapted 
to  allay  animosities  and  to  cultivate  a  better  tone  of  feeling,  were 
at  that  time  without  precedent.  They  made  a  favorable  impres- 
sion upon  the  public  mind.  With  that  successor,  and  all  others 
in  the  executive  chair,  of  whatever  politics,  Gov.  Seward  main- 
tained relations  of  mutual  respect  and  personal  friendship. 

How  strong  a  hold  his  benevolent  action  during  his  official  term 
had  taken  upon  the  classes  most  generally  overlooked,  neglected 
and  oppressed,  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  his  replies  to  letters 
and  addresses  elicited  by  his  retirement.* 

On  retiring  from  his  official  duties,  Gov.  Seward  returned  im- 
mediately to  his  residence  in  Auburn.  In  one  week's  space  of 
time,  he  was  seen  engaged  with  as  much  calmness  and  assiduity 
in  his  profession,  as  if  he  had  never  been  removed  out  of  it. 
Having  enjoyed  the  honors  of  the  highest  post  in  his  native  state, 
to  the  full  satisfaction  of  a  noble  ambition,  and  in  a  manner  to 
leave  the  deep  impress  of  his  character  on  its  laws  and  institu- 
tions, he  was  not  only  content,  but  anxious  to  turn  again  to  the 
calls  of  a  profession,  which  he  ever  pursued  with  all  the  ardor  of 
an  amateur. 

In  1843,  Gov.  Seward,  in  his  retirement  at  Auburn,  had  the 
gratification  of  a  visit  from  Ex-President  John  Quincy  Adams, 
between  whom  and  himself  the  most  intimate  relations  of  friend- 
ship had  long  existed.  The  meeting  was  one  of  great  cordiality 
and  affection.  It  has  been  said,  and  we  believe  with  truth,  that 
on  that,  as  well  as  on  other  occasions,  Mr.  Adams  expressed  his 
confidence  that  the  great  work  of  human  rights  which  he  would 
be  obliged  to  leave  unfinished,  would  devolve  more  completely 
on  Gov.  Seward,  than  on  any  surviving  statesman.  Thus  far, 
at  least,  that  expectation,  so  honorable  to  Gov.  Seward,  has  not 
been  disappointed.  The  following  pages  contain  fragments  of 
correspondence  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Gov.  Seward,  together 
with  orations  and  speeches  by  the  latter,  which,  while  they  illus- 
trate his  own  reverence  for  Mr.  Adams,  have  been  regarded  as 
presenting  their  distinguished  subject  in  his  just  attitude  before 
the  world. 

On  the  occasion  of  Mr.  Adams'  death,  Gov.  Seward  was  invited 
by  the  legislature  of  New  York,  to  pronounce  a  eulogyf  on  his 
character  and  services.  It  was  one  of  the  most  faithful  and 

*  See  VoL  III.  |  See  VoL  III.  p.  7?,. 


FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS.  Ixix 

eloquent  of  the  numerous  discourses  which  were  prepared  on 
that  great  national  bereavement.  Its  closing  sentences,  instituting 
a  comparison  between  the  death  scenes  of  Napoleon  and  Adams, 
are  scarcely  surpassed  in  pathetic  eloquence  by  any  modern 
production.  Believing  that  a  popular  biography  of  that  eminent 
statesman  would  be  more  useful  in  disseminating  and  inculcating 
his  principles,  than  any  other  contributions  that  he  could  make 
to  his  memory,  Gov.  Seward  applied  himself  to  the  preparation 
of  such  a  work.  With  the  aid  of  a  competent  friend,*  it  was 
brought  out  in  1849,  in  the  midst  of  many  absorbing  professional 
engagements.  The  author's  expectations  were  fully  realized. 
More  than  thirty-two  thousand  copies  of  the  work  have  been 
already  published,  and  its  circulation  has  been  continually  in- 
creasing. 

At  the  annual  commencement  of  Union  College  in  1843,  Gov. 
Seward  was  invited  to  deliver  the  address  before  the  Phi  Beta 
Kappa  Society,  of  which  he  is  a  member.  He  accepted  the  ap- 
pointment, and  took  for  his  theme,  "  The  Elements  of  Empire  in 
America. f  The  address  was  worthy  of  his  manly  and  vigorous 
intellect,  and  his  extensive  literary  attainments.  It  presented  a 
comprehensive  view  of  the  resources  of  the  American  Union,  and 
pointed  out  the  grandeur  of  its  destiny,  under  the  principles  of 
justice  and  freedom,  on  which  it  was  founded.  By  special  invi- 
tation, he  repeated  the  address  at  the  commencement  of  Amherst 
College,  the  same  year. 

Daring  the  ensuing  six  years,  Gov.  Seward  devoted  himself  to 
the  duties  of  his  profession  with  brilliant  and  growing  success. 
At  first,  his  practice  Avas  confined  to  the  various  courts  of  the 
state,  in  which  he  received  liberal  retainers  for  his  services.  After 
the  lapse  of  about  two  years,  however,  his  peculiar  aptitude  for 
subjects  involving  scientific  and  mechanical  principles  gained 
him  a  large  and  lucrative  practice  in  the  trial  of  patent  cases  in 
the  United  States  courts.  He  was  thus  brought  into  contact  with 
the  most  distinguished  jurists  of  the  country,  whom  his  breadth 
of  intellect  and  sound  legal  learning  enabled  him  to  meet  on 
equal  terms.  At  the  same  time,  his  genial  and  generous  disposi- 
tion, and  the  natural  frankness  of  his  manners  gave  him  great  in- 
fluence with  a  jury,  and  made  his  services  indispensable  as  counsel 
in  criminal  cases.  His  zeal  in  the  defence  of  persons  unjustly 
*  Rev.  J.  M.  Austin.  t  See  VoL  IIL  P-  n- 


Ixx  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  CASE. 

accused  was  so  great,  that  he  has  been  known  not  only  to  give 
his  best  efforts  gratuitously,  but  to  furnish  a  large  amount  of 
funds  from  his  own  means  in  their  behalf. 

In  1845,  Gov.  Seward  was  engaged  in  a  libel  suit  in  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  New  York,  in  the  case  of  J.  Fenimore  Cooper  vs. 
Greeley  &  McElrath,  publishers  of  the  New  York  Tribune.  He 
was  counsel  for  the  defendants.  It  was  deemed  a  case  of  much 
importance,  involving  as  it  did,  the  rights  of  newspaper  publish- 
ers to  utter  their  opinions,  as  to  the  character  and  acts  of  men 
holding  positions  of  influence  before  the  public.  Gov.  Seward's 
argument*  in  this  case,  was  a  sound  and  searching  production. 
It  sifted  thoroughly  and  to  the  bottom,  the  whole  subject  of  libel, 
the  modifications  which  that  law  appeal's  to  have  undergone  by 
judicial  construction  in  this  state,  and  the  rights  of  the  press  and 
the  people :  the  right  of  free  thought  and  free  speech,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  right  of  exemption  from  vituperation  and  libel  on 
the  other — all  were  brought  under  review,  and  discussed  with 
clearness  and  effect.  The  public  and  the  press  will  acknowledge 
their  obligations  to  Gov.  Seward  for  the  ability  and  force  with 
which  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  opinion  was  illustrated  and 
defended  on  that  trial. 

At  the  solicitation  of  citizens  of  Cooperstown,  IS".  Y.,  Gov. 
Seward  left  the  state  fair  at  Auburn,  in  18 — ,  to  defend  a  person 
of  politics  adverse  to  his  own,  charged  with  the  crime  of  murder. 
When  he  had  the  pleasure  of  securing  a  verdict  which  reduced 
the  crime  to  manslaughter,  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  he  declined  to  receive  any  compensation  for  his  successful 
effort  in  behalf  of  the  prisoner,  although  it  was  tendered  by  the 
jury  who  felt  themselves  indebted  to  him  for  showing  how  they 
could  rightfully  vindicate  the  laws,  and  by  it  save  a  human 
life. 

In  1847,  Gov.  Seward  was  solicited  by  certain  humane  persons 
in  Cincinnati,  with  a  tender  of  compensation,  to  be  raised  by  sub- 
scription, to  appear  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  in 
behalf  of  John  Yan  Zandt,  who  was  charged  with  aiding  certain 
fugitives  in  an  attempt  to  escape  from  slavery.  He  consented  to 
undertake  the  case.  The  argumentf  which  he  delivered  on  this 
occasion  presented  a  masterly  and  unequaled  analysis  of  the  fugi- 
tive slave  law  of  1793,  and  the  provisions  of  the  federal  constitu- 
*  See  Vol.  L  p.  391.  f  See  VoL  L  p.  476. 


THE    MURDER  OF  THE  VAN  NEST  FAMILY.  Ixxi 

tion  in  regard  to  the  subject.  It  also  stated  most  of  the  important 
objections  now  urged  against  the  present  fugitive  slave  law.  In 
this  case,  also,  Gov.  Seward  declined  all  compensation. 

In  Sept.  of  the  same  year,  Gov.  Seward  was  invited  by  the 
Irish  citizens  of  the  city  of  New  York,  to  deliver  a  eulogy  on 
the  life  and  character  of  Daniel  O'Connell.*  An  immense  assem- 
blage of  adopted  and  native  born  citizens,  listened  to  him  with 
the  highest  admiration.  Like  all  similar  efforts  from  the  pen  of 
Gov.  Seward,  it  was  a  production  at  once  chaste  and  eloquent, 
full  of  historical  and  classical  allusions,  with  many  passages  of 
the  most  thrilling  pathos,  and  did  ample  justice  to  the  principles 
and  deeds  of  the  great  Irish  orator. 

In  18-15,  a  convict  of  the  state  prison  at  Auburn,  Henry  "Wyatt, 
was  indicted  for  the  murder  of  a  fellow-convict.  His  attempts  to 
procure  able  counsel,  had  failed  for  want  of  ability  to  make  the 
usual  recompense.  On  the  day  but  one  preceding  his  trial,  he 
invoked  Gov.  Seward's  interposition  for  his  defence.  His  appeal 
was  promptly  accepted.  During  the  trial,  many  striking  inci- 
dents were  disclosed,  which  showed  that  the  crime  was  committed 
in  a  morbid  state  of  mind.  The  case  clearly  fell  within  a  class 
which  medical  writers  designate  under  the  general  name  of  moral 
insanity.  Gov.  Seward  procured,  at  his  own  expense,  the  scientific 
witnesses  necessary  to  present  the  case  fairly  to  the  jury.  He  fol- 
lowed in  his  defence  with  an  argument  of  great  power  and  pathos. 
The  jury  divided  and  could  not  agree  upon  a  verdict.  His  second 
trial  at  the  next  Circuit  Court,  was  eagerly  anticipated,  with  full 
confidence  that  he  would  be  acquitted.  This  event,  however,  was 
destined  to  become  the  occasion  of  difficulties  such  as  few  advo- 
cates have  been  called  to  encounter.  After  the  close  of  the  first 
trial,  Gov.  Seward  left  Auburn  on  a  professional  tour  to  Wash- 
ington and  the  southern  states. 

"While  the  case  of  "Wyatt  was  yet  the  topic  of  discussion  in 
Auburn  and  its  vicinity,  a  singularly  revolting  occurrence  took 
place,  which  served  to  increase  the  agitation  of  the  public  mind. 
This  was  the  massacre  of  nearly  a  whole  family  by  William  Free- 
man, a  negro  of  twenty-three  years  of  age,  who  had  been  six 
months  before  discharged  from  the  Auburn  state  prison,  after  an 
imprisonment  of  five  years.  The  bloody  scene  occurred  at  the 
residence  of  John  G.  Van  Xest,  a  wealthy  and  highly  respectable 

*  See  Vol.  III.  p.  44. 


Ixxii  TRIAL  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN. 

farmer,  and  a  friend  and  former  client  of  Gov.  Seward's,  whose 
house  stood  in  a  secluded  grove,  near  the  suburbs  of  Auburn,  on 
the  shores  of  the  Owasco  Lake.  Having  armed  himself  with 
carefully  prepared  weapons,  Freeman  entered  the  dwelling  at  ten 
o'clock  at  night,  and  slew  3Ir.  Van  Nest,  his  wife,  then  pregnant, 
a  child  sleeping  in  its  bed,  and  the  mother-in-law  of  Yan  Nest, 
Mrs.  Wyckoff,  an  aged  woman  of  seventy.  The  hired  man,  who 
came  to  the  defence  of  the  family,  was  severely  injured,  and  left 
for  dead.  The  murderer,  being  disabled  by  a  wound  from  old 
Mrs.  Wyckoff,  desisted  from  further  violence,  and  made  his  es- 
cape. Taking  a  horse  from  the  stable,  he  rode  him  a  few  miles, 
when  he  stabbed  the  animal,  which  had  become  incapable  of 
travelling.  lie  then  stole  another  horse,  which  proved  to  be  more 
fleet,  and  pursuing  his  flight,  rode  to  the  house  of  a  relative  about 
thirty  miles  from  Auburn.  There  he  offered  the  horse  for  sale, 
and  proposed  to  take  up  his  residence,  until  he  should  recover 
from  his  wound.  He  was  traced  and  arrested,  in  a  feAV  hours, 
and  brought  back  to  the  scene  of  butchery,  and  into  the  presence 
of  the  surviving  witnesses.  On  being  questioned,  he  at  once  con- 
fessed the  crime,  not  only  without  apparent  remorse  or  horror,  but 
with  frequent  and  irrepressible  fits  of  laughter.  The  public  in- 
dignation was  so  excited  at  this  awful  tragedy,  that  it  required  all 
the  dexterity  of  the  police  to  keep  Freeman  from  being  torn  to 
pieces  on  the  spot.  He  was  at  length  committed  to  the  jail,  by  a 
successful  stratagem,  but  the  crowd  could  with  difficulty  be  pre- 
vented from  forcing  the  doors.  They  were  appeased  only  by  the 
assurance  of  one  of  the  judges  of  the  county,  that  Freeman  should 
be  tried  and  executed,  and  that  there  should  be  no  plea  of  insanity 
and  "no  Governor  Seward  to  defend  him." 

None  of  the  usual  motives  appearing  on  the  part  of  Freeman 
for  the  commission  of  such  a  desperate  act,  it  was  rumored  that 
he  had  been  present  during  Wyatt's  trial,  and  had  learned  from 
the  argument  of  Gov.  Seward  that  responsibleness  for  crime 
might  be  avoided  on  the  ground  of  insanity.  This  became  the 
popular  explanation  of  the  horrible  catastrophe.  The  public  feel- 
ing ran  high  against  Gov.  Seward.  Even  threats  of  personal 
violence  were  openly  made.  The  excitement  became  so  intense, 
that  when  he  returned  from  the  south,  his  family  and  friends  were 
surprised  that  on  reaching  the  depot  at  Auburn,  he  was  permitted 
to  pass  to  his  residence  without  outrage. 


TRIAL  OF  WYATT  AND  FREEMAN.  Ixxiii 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  the  governor,  Silas  "Wright,  was  induced 
to  issue  an  order  for  a  special  term  of  the  Court  of  Oyer  and 
Terminer,  to  be  held  at  an  early  day,  by  Judge  Whiting,  to  dis- 
pose of  the  cases  both  of  Wyatt  and  Freeman.  During  the  in- 
terval, public  tranquillity  was  restored,  by  the  assurance  of  Gov. 
Seward's  law-partners,  while  he  was  absent,  that  he  would  not  en- 
gage in  the  defence,  it  being  well  understood  that  no  other  advo- 
cate would  consent  to  give  his  services  to  so  odious  a  cause. 

Gov.  Seward  was  unmoved  by  the  tempest  of  excitement  around 
him.  With  characteristic  courage  and  calmness,  he  proceeded  to 
examine  the  subject,  as  a  philanthropist  and  lawyer.  He  felt  as 
keenly  as  any  one,  the  enormity  of  the  deed.  But  impelled  by  a 
strong  sense  of  duty,  he  was  determined  to  look  thoroughly  into 
the  case  of  the  wretched  negro.  At  his  solicitation,  accordingly, 
three  intelligent  and  humane  citizens  of  Auburn  made  several 
visits  to  Freeman  in  jail.  They  reduced  their  conversations  with 
him  to  writing,  and  submitted  them  to  Gov.  Seward's  inspection. 
The  result  of  the  investigation,  together  with  other  facts  which 
had  become  known  to  him,  convinced  him  that  whatever  was  the 
condition  of  Freeman's  mind  prior  to  the  homicide,  he  was  then 
sunk  into  a  state  of  dementia,  approaching  idiocy. 

The  court  began  with  the  trial  of  Wyatt.  Gov.  Seward,  aware 
of  the  intense  and  aggravated  excitement  which  prevailed,  applied 
for  a  postponement  of  the  case,  but  without  effect.  A  week  was 
consumed  without  finding  a  single  impartial  juror.  The  attorney 
general,  John  Van  Buren,  was  sent  for,  with  haste.  On  his 
arrival,  the  court  reversed  the  principles  by  which  the  trial  of 
jurors  had  ever  been  conducted,  as  laid  down  by  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  and  adopted  a  standard  that  permitted  jurors  to  be  sworn 
although  they  confessed  to  a  bias,  or  an  opinion  formed  of  the 
prisoner's  guilt.  The  obtaining  of  a  juror,  even  under  this 
unprecedented  decision,  was  regarded  as  a  triumph,  in  a  con- 
troversy in  which  not  only  the  people  of  Auburn  and  its 
vicinity,  but  of  the  whole  state  took  sides  for  or  against  Gov. 
Seward. 

A  trial  conducted  under  such  circumstances,  could  have  but  one 
result.  At  the  expiration  of  a  month,  Wyatt  was  convicted  and 
sentenced  to  be  executed.  Moral  insanity  was  thus,  so  far  as  the 
verdict  of  a  jury  could  go,  judicially  abolished.  Gov.  Seward 
devoted  four  weeks  of  uninterrupted  labor  to  this  case,  without 


Ixxiv  THE  TRIAL  OF  FREEMAN. 

the  slightest  pecuniary  compensation,  and  at  an  outlay  of  no  small 
sum  from  his  own  pocket.* 

The  Freeman  case  still  remained  to  be  disposed  of.  It  came  on 
immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  "Wyatt's  trial.  An  immense 
assemblage  had  convened  in  the  court-house  at  Auburn,  to  witness 
the  opening  of  the  case.  Until  that  moment,  it  was  not  known 
whether  Freeman  would  have  any  counsel.  It  was  supposed  the 
court  would  assign  him  some  junior  member  of  the  bar ;  but  it 
was  considered  doubtful  if  one  could  be  found  of  sufficient  nerve 
to  accept  the  appointment,  and  attempt  even  a  formal  and  weak 
defence.  The  excited  multitude  were  not  backward  in  loudly 
propounding  the  inquiry,  "  Who  will  now  dare  come  forward  to 
the  defence  of  this  negro?"  "Let  us  see  the  man  who  will 
attempt  to  raise  his  voice  in  his  behalf !"  Nor  did  they  hesitate 
in  uttering  threats  of  vengeance  against  any  member  of  the  bar 
who  would  plead  the  case  of  so  vile  a  wretch.  But  there  was  one 
seated  within  the  bar  in  that  crowded  court-room,  who  heeded  not 
these  menaces.  A  being  in  human  form  was  in  distress,  and  peril 
before  him.  lie  asked  himself,  what  does  humanity  and  duty 
require  at  my  hands,  in  this  case  ?  And  having  received  from 
conscience  a  prompt  and  decisive  reply,  he  unhesitatingly  pro- 
ceeded to  the  labor  thus  enjoined  upon  him,  without  delaying  to 
consult  interest,  or  popular  favor,  or  any  of  the  consequences  that 
might  ensue.  In  vain  family,  personal  and  political  friends, 
influential  citizens,  and  members  of  the  bar,  besought  him  not  to 
interfere,  and  call  down  upon  himself  the  indignation  of  the 
populace.  In  vain  was  he  reminded  of  the  long,  weary,  and 
expensive  trial  to  which  he  had  just  devoted  himself,  to  the 
neglect  of  professional  engagements,  and  the  peril  of  health — in 
vain  was  he  forewarned  of  the  still  more  tedious,  costly,  and 
exhausting  nature  of  the  present  case,  should  he  engage  in  it.  A 
liigher  law  and  a  louder  voice  called  him  to  the  defence  of  the 
demented,  forsaken  wretch,  who  stood  insensible  of  the  vengeful 
gaze  of  a  thousand  eyes,  and  he  felt  that  he  had  no  alternative. 

*  Wyatt,  after  receiving  his  sentence,  anxious  to  afford  Gov.  Seward  some  compensa- 
tion, offered  to  narrate  his  "  life"  for  publication,  the  profits  of  which  should  go  to  Gov. 
S.,  and  it  was  taken  down  for  that  purpose.  But  on  examination  it  was  found  to  be  of 
doubtful  moral  bearing  and  influence,  and  on  that  account,  Gov.  Seward  refused  to  per- 
mit its  publication,  or  participate  in  any  profits  arising  therefrom.  A  spurious  copy, 
however,  was  afterwards  surreptitiously  obtained,  and  brought  out  in  a  pamphlet,  which 
yielded  a  net  profit  of  $600  to  the  publisher. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  FREEMAN.  Ixxv 

Freeman  was  arraigned  on  four  indictments  for  murder.  When 
asked  Avhether  lie  pleaded  guilty  to  the  first  indictment,  lie  replied, 
"  Yes !"  "  No !"  "  I  don't  know !"  "  Have  you  counsel  ?"  was 
the  next  inquiry.  "  I  don't  know,"  responded  the  prisoner,  with 
a  stupidity  which  astonished  even  those  who  were  most  eager  for 
his  death.  "  Will  any  one  defend  this  man  ?"  inquired  the  court. 
A  death-like  stillness  pervaded  the  crowded  room.  Pale  with 
emotion,  yet  firm  and  unflinching  as  steel,  Gov.  Seward,  to  the 
amazement  of  every  person  present,  arose  and  said,  "  May  it 
please  the  court,  I  appear  as  counsel  for  the  prisoner !"  It  would 
be  impossible  to  describe  the  excitement  which  followed  this 
announcement,  or  the  threatening  demonstrations  which  it  called 
forth.  David  Wright,  Esq.,  of  Auburn,  a  well  known  lawyer  and 
philanthropist,  volunteered  as  associate  counsel  in  defence  of 
Freeman.  The  attorney  general,  John  Yan  Buren,  conducted 
the  prosecution. 

Gov.  Seward  presented  to  the  court  in  bar  of  a  trial,  that  the 
prisoner  was  then  insane.  Issue  was  taken  on  this  plea,  and  a 
trial  was  directed  by  the  court,  on  the  question  of  Freeman's 
sanity  at  that  time.  After  protracted  efforts  similar  to  those  which 
took  place  in  Wyatt's  case,  a  jury  was  impanneled  to  try  this  pre- 
liminary question,  but  they  were  already  evidently  fixed  in  their 
convictions  of  the  sanity  and  guilt  of  the  prisoner. 

Gov.  Seward's  political  party,  throughout  the  state,  shrinking 
from  the  unpopularity  in  which  he  had  involved  himself,  in  a  pro- 
ceeding universally  denounced  by  the  press,  abandoned  him. 
While  these  proceedings  were  pending,  the  delegates  to  the  con- 
vention called  to  revise  the  constitution  of  the  state  of  'New  York, 
assembled  at  Albany.  The  whig  party  was  supposed  to  be  com- 
promised by  Gov.  Seward's  known  bias  in  favor  of  extending  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  the  colored  population.  The  result  of  the 
election  of  delegates  had  been  an  overwhelming  defeat  of  the 
whigs.  The  exclamation  was  universal,  that  whatever  might  be 
the  fate  of  the  whig  party  hereafter,  Gov.  Seward  was  effectually 
lost. 

Still  he  did  not  falter,  but  sternly  persevered  in  what  he  con- 
scientiously believed  to  be  the  line  of  his  duty,  and  was  the  only 
person  engaged  in  these  transactions,  except  his  client,  who  was 
calm  and  unmoved.  The  trial,  on  the  question  of  the  prisoner's 
sanity,  continued  two  weeks,  and  was  contested  by  Gov.  Seward 


Ixxvi  THE  TRIAL  OF,  FREEMAN. 

with  an  energy,  perseverance  and  skill,  that  drew  plaudits  from 
his  most  violent  opposers,  and  that  could  not  have  been  exceeded 
had  millions  of  dollars  depended  on  the  issue.  His  argument  at 
the  summing  up,  for  eloquence,  pathos,  sound  legal  views,  and 
thorough  knowledge  of  human  character,  has  rarely  been  excelled 
at  the  American  bar.  At  length,  when  the  jury  retired,  it  was 
at  once  found  that  eleven  were  agreed  that  the  prisoner  was  sane. 
The  twelfth  declared  his  unchangeable  opinion  that  Freeman,  al- 
though sane  enough  to  know  right  from  wrong,  was  yet  so  unsound 
in  mind  as  not  to  be  responsible  for  his  actions.  The  disagree- 
ment and  discussion  in  the  jury-room  being  privately  communica- 
ted to  the  court,  information  was  returned  to  the  jurors  that  the 
verdict  would  be  accepted,  although  it  gave  no  direct  response  to 
the  question  at  issue,  and  was  couched  in  equivocal  language. 
They  accordingly  brought  in  the  following  verdict — "  "We  find  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  sufficiently  sane  to  distinguish  between  right 
and  wrong."  In  an  earnest  and  elaborate  argument,  Gov.  Seward 
protested  against  the  reception  of  this  verdict,  as  it  was  illegal, 
pointless,  and  irrelevant.  But  it  was  pronounced  by  the  court  to 
be  sound  and  satisfactory,  and  Freeman  was  forthwith  put  upon 
his  trial  for  the  murders  charged  against  him. 

He  was  directed  to  stand  up  and  plead  to  the  indictment.  But 
it  was  evident  to  every  spectator  that  the  wretched  imbecile  had 
not  the  faintest  conception  of  the  nature  of  an  indictment,  or  of 
the  object  of  the  scenes  around  him,  in  which  he  unconsciously 
bore  so  conspicuous  a  part. 

"We  shall  be  pardoned  for  introducing  here  the  following  ex- 
tract from  a  vivid  description  of  the  scene  which  transpired  at  the 
reading  of  the  indictment,  by  a  clergyman  of  Auburn,  who  at- 
tended the  trial,  and  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  proceedings  : 

The  District  Attorney,  (Luman  Sherwood,  Esq.,)  -with  the  bill  of  indictment  in  his 
hand,  called  out — "  William  Freeman,  stand  up."  He  then  approached  quite  near  the 
negro,  for  he  was  very  deaf,  and  read  the  indictment  At  the  conclusion,  the  following 
dialogue  ensued : 

Dist.  Alt. — Do  you  plead  guilty,  or  not  guilty,  to  these  indictments  ? 

Freeman. — Ha ! 

D.  A. — (Repeating  the  questioa) 

f. — I  don't  know. 

D.  A. — Are  you  able  to  employ  counsel? 

F.— No. 

D.  A. — Are  you  ready  for  trial  ? 

F. — I  don't  know. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  FREEMAN.  Ixxvii 

D.  A. — Have  you  any  counsel  ? 

F. — I  don't  know. 

D.  A. — Who  are  your  counsel  ? 

F. — I  don't  know. 

At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  Gov.  Seward  could  no  longer  restrain  himself.  He 
buried  his  face  in  his  hands,  and  burst  into  tears — and  seizing  his  hat,  he  rushed  from 
the  court-room,  perfectly  overwhelmed  with  his  feelings.  And  who  that  had  but  a 
common  share  of  sympathy,  could  fail  to  be  most  sensibly  moved  at  witnessing  such  a 
procedure  on  a  subject  so  awful,  allowed  before  one  of  the  highest  tribunals  of  the  land. 
An  instrument  read  to  this  idiotic  creature,  pregnant  with  his  death,  requiring  him  to 
respond  to  the  same,  when  the  wretched  being  had  not  the  first  glimpse  of  what  it  all 
meant,  or  what  effect  it  would  have  upon  him.  D.  Wright,  Esq.,  who  had  assisted  Gov. 
Seward  on  the  preliminary  trial,  arose  after  the  reading  of  the  indictment,  and  declared 
he  could  not  consent  longer  to  take  part  in  a  cause  which  had  so  much  the  appearance 
of  a  terrible  farce.  But  Gov.  Seward,  (who  had  returned  to  the  room,)  immediately 
sprang  to  his  feet  and  exclaimed — ';  May  it  please  the  Court— I  shall  remain  counsel  for 
the  prisoner  until  his  death  /"  At  the  solicitation  of  the  court,  Mr.  Wright  finally  con- 
sented again  to  take  part  in  the  cause,  and  assist  Gov.  S. 

As  the  commission  of  the  acts  charged  were  not  denied  by  the 
prisoner's  counsel,  the  only  question  at  issue  was  his  sanity  at  the 
time  of  the  homicide.  Gov.  Seward  labored  with  unwearied  assi- 
duity to  establish  the  insanity  or  dementia  of  Freeman,  of  which 
he  was  himself  satisfied  beyond  a  possible  doubt.  At  great  ex- 
pense, defrayed  by  himself,  he  summoned  into  court  the  most 
eminent  medical  professors  and  practitioners  from  various  and  ex- 
treme parts  of  the  state,  whose  intelligent  and  unbiased  testimony 
fully  sustained  the  ground  on  which  he  urged  the  defence. 

At  length  after  a  laborious  and  exhausting  trial  of  two  weeks' 
duration,  aided  by  the  abhorrent  nature  of  the  crime,  the  over- 
whelming popular  clamor,  and  various  decisions  of  the  court, 
subversive  in  many  instances,  of  established  rales  in  capital  trials, 
the  attorney  general  succeeded  in  procuring  from  the  jury  a 
verdict  of  guilty. 

Gov.  Seward's  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  prisoner  were  thus  de- 
feated. But  he  had  faithfully  discharged  his  duty,  and  the 
responsibility  of  holding  an  insane  or  idiotic  person  responsible 
for  his  deeds,  rested  not  with  him.  Freeman  was  adjudged  and 
condemned  as  a  sane  man.  Gov.  S.  had  no  more  to  offer  in  that 
place,  and  the  court  was  suffered  to  proceed  in  passing  sentence 
upon  the  prisoner. 

As  in  reading  the  indictment,  so  in  the  passing  of  the  sentence, 
a  scene  occurred  unparalleled,  we  venture  to  affirm,  in  any  court 
of  justice.  Instead  of  standing  in  the  dock  as  is  customary,  the 


Ixxviii  THE  TRIAL  OF  FREEMAN. 

Judge  directed  the  prisoner  to  be  brought  to  his  side  upon  the 
bench.     The  Judge  then  said  to  him  : — 

"  The  jury  say  you  are  guilty.    Do  you  hear  me  V 
"  Yes,"  replied  Freeman. 

"  The  jury,"  repeated  the  Judge,  "  say  you  are  guilty.     Do  you  understand  ?" 
"  No,"  said  the  negro. 

"  Do  you  know  which  the  jury  are  ?"  inquired  the  court 
"  No  !"  answered  the  prisoner. 

"  Well !  they  are  those  gentlemen  down  there,"  continued  Judge  Whiting,  pointing  to 
the  jurors  in  their  seats — "  and  they  say  you  are  guilty.     Do  you  understand  V 
"  No !" 

"  They  say  you  killed  Van  Nest    Do  you  understand  that  3" 
"  Yes !" 

"  Did  you  kill  Van  Nest  ?" 
"  Yes !" 

"  I  am  going  to  pronounce  sentence  upon  you.     Do  you  understand  that  ?" 
"  No." 

"  I  am  going  to  sentence  you  to  be  hanged.     Do  you  understand  that  ?" 
"  No." 

The  prisoner  was  then  led  back  to  the  dock,  and  the  Judge 
proceeded  to  pronounce  sentence  of  death  upon  him.  This  he 
did  in  the  form  of  an  address  read  to  the  audience — thus  tacitly- 
admitting,  what  was  evident  to  every  person  in  the  immense  mul- 
titude present,  that  Freeman  knew  not  a  word  he  uttered,  or  the 
strange  scene  thus  transpiring.  He  was  conveyed  to  his  cell  as 
unconscious  of  the  sentence  that  had  been  pronounced  upon  him, 
as-  an  unborn  child. 

A  bill  of  exceptions  was  prepared  by  Gov.  Seward,  but  the 
Judge  refused  a  stay  of  proceedings.  It  was  however,  subse- 
quently granted  by  a  Judge  of  an  appellate  court,  and  in  October 
following,  on  a  full  review  of  the  whole  case,  a  new  trial  was  grant- 
ed. But  Freeman,  who  had  proved  himself  a  monomaniac  in 
the  committal  of  the  homicide,  now  sunk  so  low  in  dementia, 
that  Judge  "Whiting,  before  whom  he  was  tried  and  convicted, 
pronounced  him  incompetent  for  another  trial,  and  refused  to 
proceed  with  the  case.  A  few  weeks  later,  the  wretched  and 
imbruted  William  Freeman  passed  from  earth  to  the  presence  of 
a  more  wise  and  merciful  Judge. 

A  post-mortem  examination  was  made,  by  the  most  eminent 
physicians  in  the  state,  which  showed  that  Freeman's  brain  was 
diseased  and  destroyed.  The  publication  of  Gov.  Seward's  sec- 
ond argument*  in  this  remarkable  case,  an  effort  of  the  highest  and 
*  See  VoL  I.  p.  409. 


TRIAL  OF  FREEMAN.        .  Ixxix 

most  attractive  character,  unsurpassed  in  eloquence,  logic  and 
legal  ability,  had  already  wrought  a  reaction  in  public  opinion, 
which  was  rendered  complete  and  universal  by  this  post- 
mortem examination.  Now,  there  is  no  one  act  of  Go.v.  Seward's 
life,  for  which  society  is  more  grateful  to  him  than  that  of  hav- 
ing saved  the  community  from  the  crime  of  the  judicial  murder 
of  Freeman — an  ignorant  colored  boy  who  had  been  confined  in 
the  state  prison  for  an  offence  of  which  he  was  innocent,  and 
driven  to  lunacy  by  a  sense  of  the  injustice  of  his  punishment, 
and  by  inhumanity  in  the  exercise  of  penitentiary  discipline. 

Before  leaving  this  case,  it  is  due  to  Gov.  Seward  to  insert  an- 
other extract  from  an  article  by  the  clergyman  in  Auburn,  to 
whom  allusion  has  already  been  made,  written  immediately  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  trial,  and  published  in  the  journals  of  the 
day.  It  describes  the*  impression  made  at  the  time  by  the  high- 
minded  and  humane  course  of  Gov.  S.  on  a  class  of  individuals 
who  did  not  allow  retaliatory  emotions  to  cloud  their  judgment, 
or  harden  their  feelings,  against  the  forsaken  creature  who  com- 
mitted the  dreadful  homicide.  The  sentiments  it  utters  in  regard 
to  the  part  taken  by  Gov.  Seward  in  this  remarkable  case,  we  are 
confident  will  find  a  response  in  every  unprejudiced  and  humane 
heart. 

The  conduct  of  G6v.  Seward  in  this  painful  affair  reflects  the  highest  honor  upon  him. 
Shocked,  horrified,  though  he  was  at  the  awful  tragedy  which  had  been  enacted,  and 
which  had  destroyed  a  family  with  whom  he  was  on  terms  of  intimate  friendship,  yet 
seeing  the  blood-stained,  wretched  negro  deserted  by  all,  even  those  of  his  own  caste 
and  color,  and  becoming  abundantly  satisfied  that  he  was  an  insane,  irresponsible  being, 
he  nobly  volunteered  in  his  defence.  Moved  alone  by  the  sympathies  of  his  generous 
soul,  and  a  high  sense  of  duty  to  the  weak  and  defenceless — in  opposition  alike  to  the 
entreaties  of  friends  ever  watchful  of  his  reputation  and  interests,  and  the  imprecations 
of  an  incensed  multitude,  eager  that  the  blood  of  a  demented  creature  should  be  shed — 
he  boldly  threw  himself  between  the  victim  and  those  who  would  hurry  him  in  hot 
haste  to  an  ignominious  death  1  Without  fee  or  compensation  of  any  description,  for 
four  weeks  he  toiled  through  the  sultry  hours  of  the  summer  day,  far  into  the  shades  of 
night — sparing  no  time,  no  strength,  no  ability — contesting  every  inch  of  ground,  with 
an  industry,  a  perseverance,  an  unyielding  faithfulness,  that  wrung  commendation  even 
from  those  most  exasperated  against  his  idiotic  client.  And  all  this  for  whom  ?  For  a 
NEGRO  ! — the  poorest  and  lowest  of  his  degraded  caste — and  who  though  seated  directly 
by  his  side,  did  not  know  that  he  was  his  counsel — was  not  even  aware  that  one  of  the 
mightiest  intellects  of  the  age,  one  of  the  noblest  spirits  of  the  world,  was  taxing  his  ut- 
most energies  in  defence  of  his  life  ! 

In  his  eloquent  appeal  on  the  preliminary  trial  respecting  Freeman's  insanity,  Gov. 
Seward  alluded  to  the  excitement  which  had  been  kindled  against  him  for  the  faithful- 


1XXX  THE  DETROIT  TRIAL. 

ntss  with  -which  he  defended  both  Wyatt  and  Freeman,  in  the  following  thrilling  pas 
sage: 

"  In  due  time,  gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  -when  I  shall  have  paid  the  debt  of  nature,  my 
remains  will  rest  here  in  your  midst,  with  those  of  my  kindred  and  neighbors.  It  is  very 
possible  they  may  be  uuhouored — neglected — spurned  !  But  perhaps  years  hence. 
when  the  passion  and  excitement  which  now  agitate  this  community  shall  have  passed 
away — some  wandering  stranger — some  lone  exile — some  Indian — some  Negro — mav 
erect  over  them  an  humble  stone,  and  thereon  this  epitaph — '  HE  WAS  FAITHFUL  !'  " 

What  spectacle  more  interesting  can  be  witnessed  on  earth  than  was  presented  on 
this  trial  ?  A  statesman  of  the  most  commanding  talents — one  who  had  received  the 
highest  honors  the  people  of  his  native  state  could  bestow  upon  him — one  whose  well- 
known  abilities  call  around  him  crowds  of  wealthy  clients,  able  to  reward  his  valuable 
services  with  streams  of  gold — turning  from  all  these,  at  the  call  of  humanity,  and  go- 
ing down  unrewarded,  yea  at  great  pecuniary  expense  to  himself,  to  the  defence  of  this 
forsaken,  pitiable  son  of  Africa  !  Unrewarded,  did  I  say  ?  A  richer  reward  than  sil- 
ver or  gold  is  his  !  Wherever  the  tidings  of  this  strange  trial  shall  be  wafted  through- 
out this  civilized  world,  they  will  carry  the  name  of  SEWARD  to  be  embalmed  as  a  sa- 
cred treasure  in  the  hearts  of  all  lovers  of  humanity — of  all  who  sympathize  with  the 
degraded  and  enslaved  Ethiopian — of  all  who  pity  those  whom  God  has  deprived  of 
reason ! 

In  1S49,  forty  persons  residing  in  the  interior  of  the  state  of 
Michigan,  about  sixty  miles  from  Detroit,  were  indicted  on  a  charge 
of  huming  the  railroad  depot  in  that  city.  The  Michigan  Central 
Railroad  Company  adopted,  and  carried  forward  the  prosecution. 
Eminent  lawyers  to  the  number  of  ten,  were  employed  by  the 
company  to  sustain  the  indictment ;  and  every  other  lawyer  of 
mark,  in  that  state,  except  one,  was  retained  by  the  prosecution, 
to  prevent  him  from  engaging  in  defence  of  the  prisoners.  The 
offence,  connected  with  other  circumstances,  had  produced  an 
excitement  scarcely  less  than  that  which  has  been  described  in  the 
case  of  Freeman. 

The  prisoners  then  in  jail,  represented  these  facts  to  Gov. 
Seward,  and  appealed  to  him  to  defend  them,  stating  that  in  con- 
sequence of  the  wealth  and  influence  arrayed  against  them,  they 
were  deprived  of  the  opportunity  of  obtaining  proper  counsel  at 
home.  Although  Gov.  Seward  had  then  withdrawn,  as  he  sup- 
posed, for  ever  from  jury  trials,  he  seems  to  have  believed  that  he 
could  not  leave  those  persons,  whether  innocent  or  guilty,  to 
suffer  for  want  of  defence,  without  a  reproach  to  the  profession  to 
which  he  belonged,  and  of  which  humanity  is  the  highest  orna- 
ment. He  repaired,  therefore,  to  Detroit,  arriving  after  the  trial 
had  commenced.  It  lasted  four  months — the  longest  judicial 
trial  that  has  occurred  in  this  country.  Almost  without  com- 
pensation, he  persevered  in  defence  of  the  unhappy  prisoners  to 


NATIVE  AMERICANS— MR.  CLAY.  Ixxxi 

the  end,  in  the  midst  of  an  excitement  which  allowed  no  charity 
either  there  or  elsewhere,  for  the  motives  by  which  he  was 
governed.  He  had,  however,  the  reward  of  success,  so  far  as  to 
procure  the  acquittal  of  twenty-eight  persons  accused.* 

Of  the  character  of  Gov.  Seward's  professional  labors  and  con- 
duct in  the  department  of  arguments  at  the  bar,  illustrations  will 
be  found  in  his  pleas  for  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  against  the 
fugitive  slave  law,  and  for  the  rights  of  inventors,  contained  in 
the  present  collection.f 

The  retirement  of  Gov.  Seward  from  office,  permitting  party 
heats  to  abate,  and  freeing  his  views  on  public  questions  from  the 
influence  of  prejudice,  was  followed  by  a  growing  reaction  of 
popular  sentiment  in  his  favor.  He  had  been  opposed  by  the 
abolitionists,  because  he  withheld  his  countenance  from  their 
extreme  measures,  and  by  the  enemies  of  abolition,  because  of  his 
sympathy  with  the  cause.  Adopted  citizens  had  been  led  to 
distrust  the  sincerity  of  his  efforts  in  their  behalf,  and  protestants 
saw  danger  to  religion  in  his  zeal  for  equal  justice  to  the 
foreigner  and  native.  The  friends  of  internal  improvement 
accused  him  of  lukewarmness,  while  the  opponents  of  that  system 
predicted  the  impoverishment  of  the  state  from  the  extravagance 
of  his  zeal.  But  now  all  these  prejudices  were  softened.  His 
character  and  his  opinions  were  presented  in  a  truer  light.  His 
sincerity  was  placed  above  the  reach  of  suspicion.  No  one 
questioned  his  rare  abilities.  While  new  friends  were  constantly 
won,  his  old  friends  adhered  to  him  with  affectionate  fidelity. 
Though  abstaining  from  the  exercise  of  political  influence,  he  was 
regarded  as  the  leader  of  his  party  in  the  state,  and  his  labors 
were  claimed  for  every  movement  in  behalf  of  its  interests. 

Upon  the  organization  of  the  Native  American  party,  which 
commenced  with  the  burning  of  Roman  Catholic  churches,  and 
aimed  at  a  complete  change  in  the  naturalization  laws,  the  adopted 
citizens  with  one  accord,  appealed  to  Gov.  Seward  for  sympathy 
and  protection.  His  speeches  and  letters,  during  the  agitation  of 
this  subject,  show  his  vigorous  resistance  to  principles  which  he 
had  always  regarded  as  political  heresies.  In  this  respect,  his 
course  has  been  uniform  and  consistent,  from  the  beginning. 

Notwithstanding  Gov.  Seward  was  overruled  in  his  opposition 
to  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Clay  for  the  presidency,  in  1844,  at  the 

*  See  VoL  I.  page  523.  f  See    Forensic  Arguments,  VoL  I.  p.  391. 

VOL.  I— F 


Ixxxii  CONVENTION— NEW    CONSTITUTION. 

instance  of  the  whig  party,  he  took  an  active  part  in  the  canvass 
of  the  state,  until  the  day  of  the  election.  He  spared  no  pains  to 
remove  the  objections  of  the  anti-slavery  voters,  and  of  the  adopted 
citizens,  to  the  whig  candidate.  If  strenuous  energy  and  powerful 
eloquence  could  have  insured  success,  Henry  Clay  would  have 
received  the  vote  of  New  York.  But  the  only  result  of  these 
efforts  was  to  prevent  an  increase  of  the  desertion  from  the  whig 
ranks,  which  was  experienced  in  1842. 

With  his  uncompromising  hostility  to  the  extension  of  slavery 
in  the  United  States,  Gov.  Seward  opposed  the  annexation  of 
Texas  to  the  last,  and  condemned  the  Mexican  war,  which  he  had 
predicted  as  its  consequence.  Still,  during  the  continuance  of  the 
war,  he  urgently  maintained  the  duty  of  supporting  the  govern- 
ment by  liberal  appropriations  of  men  and  money. 

"While  the  Oregon  question  was  pending  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  he  agreed  with  John  Quincy  Adams 
that  our  government  should  give  notice  to  Great  Britain  of  the 
termination  of  the  joint  occupancy  of  that  territory.  ISTot with- 
standing all  the  threats  and  alarms  of  war,  he  exerted  his 
influence  with  the  members  of  Congress  to  sustain  the  administra- 
tion in  the  adoption  of  that  measure. 

The  subject  of  internal  improvements  in  the  state,  together  with 
the  conflicts  of  interest  about  the  patronage  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment, produced  a  division  as  early  as  1843  in  the  ranks  of  the  so- 
called  New  York  democracy.  The  rival  factions  came  soon  to 
designate  each  other  as  hunkers  and  barnburners.  While  each 
admitted  the  necessity  of  some  amendments  to  the  constitution, 
they  could  not  agree  on  the  details.  No  proposal  to  that  effect, 
accordingly,  could  obtain  the  assent  of  two  successive  legislatures, 
or  a  two-third  vote,  which  was  necessary  in  the  last  instance,  for 
submitting  a  proposition  to  the  people.  The  barnburners,  who 
sought  for  more  radical  reforms  than  their  opponents,  were  thus 
led  to  agitate  the  call  of  a  convention  for  the  entire  revision  of 
the  constitution.  This  measure  was  discountenanced  by  leading 
whigs,  who  regarded  it  as  revolutionary,  and  of  dangerous  ten- 
dencies. Gov.  Seward  took  the  opposite  ground.  He  argued 
that  such  a  convention  would  present  an  opportunity  to  the  whigs 
to  take  the  sense  of  the  people  upon  the  measures  proposed  by 
the  barnburners  against  internal  improvements.  It  might  also 
secure  the  advantage  of  decentralizing  the  political  power  of  the 


ELECTION  OF   GEN.  TAYLOR.  Ixxxiii 

state,  by  dividing  it  into  single  senatorial  and  assembly  districts, 
and  transferring  the  appointment  of  all  judicial  and  administra- 
tive offices  from  the  governor  and  legislature  to  the  people,  as 
well  as  entrusting  all  matters  of  local  legislation  to  county  boards 
of  supervisors,  instead  of  the  legislature  at  Albany.  It  would, 
moreover,  permit  an  attempt  to  extend  the  right  of  suffrage, 
without  a  freehold  qualification,  to  the  African  race.  The  views 
of  Gov.  Seward  were  generally  adopted.  The  convention  was 
called  with  great  unanimity  by  all  parties.  Although  the  whigs 
had  but  a  small  majority  in  that  body,  all  the  proposed  reforms 
were  carried,  except  the  latter.  The  sceptre  which  had  so  long 
been  wielded  by  the  Albany  regency  was  broken,  and  the  concen- 
tration of  political,  judicial,  and  moneyed  power,  on  which  their 
empire  was  built,  was  henceforth  impossible. 

The  recurrence  of  the  presidential  election  in  1848,  found  Gov. 
Seward  consenting  to  the  nomination  of  Gen.  Taylor,  whom  he 
regarded,  at  that  time,  as  the  only  available  candidate.  He  had 
greater  confidence  in  the  success  of  Gen.  Taylor,  as  his  name  had 
been  brought  before  the  people,  in  connexion  with  the  presidency, 
on  account  of  his  brilliant  achievements  in  the  Mexican  war,  to 
which  he  was  understood  to  have  been  opposed.  His  election, 
therefore,  would  serve  to  rebuke  those  politicians  who  had  plunged 
the  country  in  war  for  selfish  purposes,  and  would  thus  inculcate 
lessons  of  moderation  and  peace  to  rulers.  Gov.  Seward  favored 
his  nomination,  moreover,  because  the  previous  course  of  the  can- 
didate warranted  the  belief  that  he  would  veto  no  act  of  Congress 
establishing  governments  which  excluded  slavery  in  our  newly- 
acquired  Mexican  territory.  "With  these  views,  Gov.  Seward  de- 
voted himself  with  great  energy  to  the  canvass  in  the  states  of 
jSTew  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Massachusetts,  in  behalf  of 
Gen.  Taylor,  and  of  such  members  of  Congress  as  might  be  relied 
upon  to  support  his  administration  and  to  extend  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  on  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  over  the  Mexican 
territories. 

The  election  of  Gen.  Taylor  to  the  presidency  seemed  to  be  a 
favorable  indication  for  the  policy  of  freedom,  that  had  been  so 
earnestly  defended  by  Gov.  Seward.  Connected  with  the  return 
of  a  whig  majority  both  in  the  national  house  of  representatives 
and  the  legislature  of  New  York,  that  event  was  supposed  to 
guaranty  the  restriction  of  slavery  within  its  existing  boundaries 


Ixxxiv  SENATE— GEN".  TAYLOR. 

and  the  establishment  of  a  free  domain  along  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
and  across  the  continent  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, Gov.  Seward  was  elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  in  place  of  Hon.  John  A.  Dix,  whose  term  was  about  to 
expire.  The  vote  of  the  legislature,  which  was  given  in  February, 
1849,  stood— for  Gov.  Seward,  121,  and  for  all  others  30.  This 
was  an  unusually  large  majority,  there  being  no  serious  opposition 
to  his  election.  lie  entered  the  thirty-first  Congress,  together  with 
thirty-three  other  whig  members,  and  one  democratic  member, 
from  the  state  of  New  York,  who,  in  accordance  with  the  pre- 
vailing sentiment  of  the  state,  were  all  understood  to  agree  with 
him  in  the  policy  of  circumscribing  the  region  of  slavery. 

On  arriving  at  Washington,  in  February  before  the  commence- 
ment of  his  senatorial  term,  Gov.  Seward  found  Congress  engaged 
on  an  amendment  to  the  civil  and  diplomatic  appropriation  bill, 
proposed  by  Mr.  "Walker,  of  which  the  effect  would  be  to  abro- 
gate the  laws  of  Mexico  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery.  This 
amendment  had  already  passed  the  Senate,  but  Gov.  Seward.  with 
characteristic  energy,  exerted  himself  to  secure  its  defeat  in  the 
House.  His  efforts  were  successful ;  the  amendment  was  lost  in 
the  house,  after  a  long  and  excited  debate ;  the  senate  receded 
from  it,  on  the  last  night  of  the  session. 

The  sagacity  of  Gen.  Taylor,  on  his  accession  to  office,  was  sig- 
nally displayed  in  his  choice  of  Gov.  Seward  as  one  of  his  most 
intimate  friends  and  counsellors.  Familiar  with  all  the  elements 
of  northern  society,  with  every  aspect  of  public  opinion,  and  the 
feelings  and  interests  of  the  people — conversant  with  civil  affairs 
as  a  jurist  and  statesman — cherishing  a  lofty  sense  of  honor  and  a 
generous  sympathy  with  popular  rights — courteous  and  tolerant 
towards  his  opponents,  though  rigidly  faithful  to  his  convictions — 
inspired  with  a  glowing  sentiment  both  of  patriotism  and  human- 
ity— and  ardently  devoted  to  the  support  of  the  federal  Union, — 
he  was  eminently  qualified  to  promote  the  welfare  of  his  country 
in  the  responsible  function  of  adviser  to  the  president.  With  a 
delicate  sense  of  propriety,  while  thus  enjoying  the  confidence  of 
Gen.  Taylor,  he  declined  being  placed  on  any  important  commit- 
tee of  the  Senate,  lest  it  might  be  supposed,  on  some  occasions, 
that  he  acted  authoritatively  in  his  behalf.  He  was  unwilling 
to  embarrass  the  administration  by  any  sectional  prejudices 


THE  HIGHER  LAW.  Ixxxv 

against  himself,  but  quietly  to  bring  the  aid  of  his  wisdom  and 
experience  to  the  support  of  its  head. 

He  concurred  with  Gen.  Taylor  in  his  invitation  to  California 
and  New  Mexico  to  organize  state  governments  and  apply  for 
admission  into  the  Union  at  the  next  session  of  Congress.  The 
suggestion  of  the  President  was  adopted.  As  G-ov.  Seward  had 
anticipated,  California  appeared  by  her  senators  and  representa- 
tives at  the  commencement  of  the  congressional  session  in  Decem- 
ber, 1849,  with  a  constitution  excluding  slavery.  It  was  understood 
that  New  Mexico  was  preparing  to  come  with  a  similar  constitu- 
tion. 

To  Gov.  Seward  belongs  the  authorship  of  the  phrase — the 
Higher  Law — which  has  acquired  a  fame  that  will  never  die.  It 
was  used  by  him  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate,  March  11,  1850, 
on  the  admission  of  California  into  the  Union. 

This  speech  was  unanimously  acknowledged  to  be  a  bold,  man- 
ly, and  profound  production.  Lucid  and  consecutive  in  argu- 
ment, learned  in  historical  and  philosophical  illustrations,  with 
a  chaste  elegance  of  diction,  it  was  not  surpassed  for  sound 
statesmanship  and  an  acute  exposition  of  the  principles  of  natural 
and  constitutional  law,  by  any  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  on 
the  absorbing  subject  of  freedom  in  the  territories. 

The  enemies  of  Gov.  Seward  at  once  accused  him  of  maintain- 
ing the  existence  of  a  Higher  Law,  in  opposition  to  the  Con- 
stitution, by  which  the  new  domain  of  California  was  devoted  to 
justice,  liberty,  and  union.  But  this  was  a  flagrant  misrepresen- 
tation of  his  language,  which  embodied  a  truth,  that  none  but 
the  grossest  materialists  and  skeptics  can  call  in  question.  No 
enlightened  ethical  philosopher,  no  man  of  ordinary  religious 
feeling  and  conscientiousness  will  deny  that  there  is  a  law  higher 
than  political  constitutions  and  human  legislation,  "  the  law  which 
governs  all  law — the  law  of  our  Creator,  the  law  of  humanity, 
justice,  equity,  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations."  Nor  will  it  be 
doubted,  that  in  case  of  a  conflict  between  divine  and  human  law, 
"  we  ought  to  obey  God,  rather  than  man."  But  it  was  not  the  pur- 
pose of  Gov.  Seward  on  that  occasion,  to  repeat  a  principle  so  plain 
as  this.  The  phrase  as  used  by  him  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
would  hardly  seem  capable  of  such  misconstruction  as  has  been 
given  to  it.  We  quote  his  words,  precisely  as  they  were  spoken : 

"  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  national  domain  is  ours.    It  is  true  it  was  acquired  by 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  TJ.  S.  SENATE. 

the  valor  and  with  the  -wealth  of  the  whole  nation.  But  we  hold,  nevertheless,  no 
arbitrary  power  over  it.  We  hold  no  arbitrary  authority  over  anything,  whether 
acquired  lawfully  or  seized  by  usurpation.  The  Constitution  regulates  our  steward- 
ship ;  the  Constitution  devotes  the  domain  to  union,  to  justice,  to  defence,  to  welfare, 
and  to  liberty.  But  there  is  a  Higher  Law  than  the  Constitution,  which  regulates  our 
authority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to  the  same  noble  purposes.  The  territory  is 
a  part,  no  inconsiderable  part,  of  the  common  heritage  of  mankind,  bestowed  upon 
them  by  the  Creator  of  the  Universe.  "We  are  his  stewards,  and  must  so  discharge 
our  trust  as  to  secure  in  the  highest  attainable  degree  their  happiness." 

Every  intelligent  reader  will  perceive  that  while  Gov.  Seward 
devoutly  recognizes  the  Law  of  God,  and  its  paramount  claims 
both  on  individuals  and  nations,  he  was  far  from  asserting  a  con- 
tradiction between  that  law  and  the  American  Constitution  on 
the  subject  in  question.  On  the  contrary,  he  declares  that  they 
agree  in  demanding  freedom  and  justice  for  the  new  domain. 
Can  any  wise  statesman,  can  any  far-seeing  patriot,  can  any 
friend  of  human  improvement  deny  the  soundness  of  this  posi- 
tion? 

But  let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  In  vindicating  Gov.  Seward 
from  the  aspersions  which  were  brought  upon  him  by  the  expres- 
sion alluded  to,  it  is  far  from  our  intention  to  disclaim  for  him  a 
belief  that  the  obligation  of  human  laws  is  founded  on  their  har- 
mony with  the  principles  of  eternal  justice.  He  is  no  adherent 
of  the  superficial  and  wretched  philosophy  which  derives  the  dis- 
tinctions of  morality  from  the  caprices  of  opinion.  In  common 
with  the  greatest  thinkers  of  all  ages,  he  traces  the  obligation  of 
right  to  the  uncreated  wisdom  of  the  Deity.  "With  Plato  and 
Cicero,  in  ancient  times,  with  Bacon,  Hooker,  and  Cudworth,  at 
a  later  date,  he  recognizes  the  bosom  of  the  Deity  as  the  seat  and 
fountain  of  law — "  whose  voice  is  the  harmony  of  the  world." 
This  ennobling  idea  pervades  the  writings  of  Gov.  feeward, — it  is 
the  pivot  of  his  personal  character,  as  well  as  of  his  public  and 
legislative  career.  Among  other  instances  of  its  operation,  we 
find  it  in  an  argument,  in  1847,  relating  to  the  fugitive  slave  law 
of  1793,  where  he  uses  the  following  striking  expression :  "  Con- 
gress has  no  power  to  inhibit  any  duty  commanded  by  God  on 
Mount  Sinai,  or  by  his  Son  on  the  Mount  of  Olives."* 

During  the  discussion  of  the  "  Compromise  Bill,"  Gov.  Seward 
addressed  the  Senate,  July  2,  1850,  in  a  speechf  remarkable  for 
the  vigor  of  its  dialectics,  its  comprehensive  and  sagacious  states- 

*  See  Forensic  Arguments,  Parks  vs.  Van  Zandt,  VoL  I.  \  See  Vol.  I.  p.  44r-110. 


PUBLIC  LANDS— KOSSUTH.  Ixxxvii 

manship,  and  its  noble  zeal  for  freedom,  as  well  as  for  the 
appositeness  of  its  classical  illustrations,  and  the  polished  beauty 
of  its  style.  His  exposition  of  the  dangers  and  evils  of  the  com- 
promise is  in  a  strain  of  masterly  eloquence.  After  appealing  to 
the  wisdom  of  his  auditors  to  adopt  the  true  principle  of  concilia- 
tion by  gradual  reform,  he  closed  his  remarks  with  one  of  those 
genuine  touches  of  poetry  which  often  flash  over  the  severity  of 
his  argumentative  discourse.  ';  "We  shall  then  realize  once  more 
the  concord  which  results  from  mutual  league,  united  councils, 
and  equal  hopes  and  hazards  in  the  most  sublime  and  beneficent 
enterprise  the  earth  has  witnessed.  The  fingers  of  the  Powers 
above  would  tune  the  harmony  of  such  a  peace." 

This  speech  was  succeeded  by  speeches  on  "  New  Mexico,"  and 
"  Freedom  in  the  District  of  Columbia,"  in  which  Gov.  Seward 
displayed  his  usual  elevation  of  thought  in  applying  the  principles 
of  universal  justice  to  the  maintenance  of  human  rights.  In 
January,  1851,  Gov.  Seward  delivered  a  speech,  on  the  question 
of  "Indemnities  for  French  Spoliations,"  giving  a  luminous 
analysis  of  the  whole  subject,  accompanied  with  ample  historical 
proofs,  and  eloquently  enforcing  the  necessity  of  justice  and  good 
faith  to  national  honor.  The  state  that  would  be  prosperous  must 
be  free  from  the  burden  of  violated  engagements.  The  people 
that  would  dwell  in  safety,  without  fear  for  fireside,  fane,  or 
capitol,  must  practice  an  austere  and  pure  morality — must 
embody  in  their  daily  lives  the  spirit  of  the  eternal  law  through 
which  "  the  most  ancient  Heavens  are  fresh  and  strong." 

The  next  great  topic,  on  which  Gov.  Seward  addressed  the 
Senate  was  the  "  Public  Domain."  In  his  speech  on  this  subject, 
Feb.  27,  1851,  without  maintaining  the  absurdity  that  the  land  of 
any  country  ought  to  be  or  can  be  equally  divided  and  enjoyed,  he 
shows  the  evils  arising  to  the  highest  interests  of  society  from 
great  inequalities  in  landed  estates.  His  views  of  the  gratuitous 
distribution  of  portions  of  the  public  domain  to  actual  settlers, 
although  they  may  fail  to  win  the  sympathy  of  politicians,  are 
marked  by  equal  humanity  and  good  sense,  and  will  challenge  the 
attention  of  all  intelligent  friends  of  social  progress. 

In  Dec.  1851,  Gov.  Seward  submitted  a  resolution  to  the  Senate, 
in  favor  of  a  cordial  welcome  by  Congress  to  Kossuth,  to  be  com- 
municated by  the  president  as  the  executive  organ  of  the  United 
States.  His  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  illustrious  champion  of 
Hungary  are  expressed  in  two  speeches  on  the  subject,  which 


Ixxxviii  JOHN  QUmCY  ADAMS. 

handle  the  objections  of  the  opponents  to  the  resolution  with  a 
good-humored  severity  of  argument,  and  a  remarkable  terseness 
of  language,  while  they  present  the  claims  of  Kossuth  to  the 
admiration  of  American  freemen,  in  a  style  of  fervid  eloquence 
that  is  equally  touching  in  its  pathos  and  convincing  in  its 
appeals. 

During  the  following  February,  the  discussion  of  Mr.  Foote's 
resolution,  declaring  the  sympathy  of  Congress  with  the  exiled 
Irish  patriots,  Smith  O'Brien  and  Thomas  F.  Meagher,  came  up  in 
the  Senate,  when  Gov.  Seward  took  occasion  to  express  his  deep 
interest  in  the  welfare  of  Ireland,  enforcing  his  views  with  his  usual 
vigor  of  argument  and  liveliness  of  illustration.  This  was  suc- 
ceeded in  March  by  a  speech  on  "  Freedom  in  Europe  ;"  in  which 
he  presents  an  admirable  sketch  of  the  Hungarian  revolution,  dis- 
cusses the  neutral  policy  of  Washington  in  regard  to  foreign  na- 
tions, explains  the  true  character  of  intervention,  and  argues  at 
length  in  its  defence.  The  tone  of  this  speech  is  lofty  and  severe, 
and  in  some  passages  rises  to  an  almost  Miltonic  grandeur. 

The  next  speeches  of  Gov.  Seward  in  the  Senate  were  on 
"  American  Steam  Navigation,"  "  Survey  of  the  Arctic  and  Pa- 
cific Oceans,"  and  "  The  American  Fisheries."  A  peculiar  value 
attaches  to  these  speeches  from  their  eminently  practical  charac- 
ter, the  variety  and  accuracy  of  the  statistics  which  they  embody, 
their  clear  and  cogent  reasonings  on  the  facts  they  present,  the  in- 
timate knowledge  which  they  exhibit  of  the  commercial  and  in- 
dustrial relations  of  the  country,  and  the  enlightened  and  glowing 
patriotism  with  which  they  are  inspired.  To  the  admirers  of  Gov. 
Seward  they  are  of  no  less  interest,  on  account  of  their  fine  illus- 
trations both  of  his  mental  habits  and  his  personal  character.  In 
the  action  of  his  intellect,  patience  and  depth  of  research,  a  con- 
stant aim  at  the  integral  unity  of  the  subject,  a  logical  grouping 
of  particulars  in  reference  to  a  future  pregnant  inference,  and  a 
singular  self-possession  in  the  exercise  of  judgment,  ever  serve  as 
the  basis  which  underlies  the  expression  of  a  masculine  and  gen- 
erous enthusiasm  and  an  earnest-hearted  sympathy  with  all  that 
is  beautiful  in  the  progress,  or  sacred  in  the  hopes  of  collective 
humanity. 

The  speeches  of  Gov.  Seward  in  the  Senate  since  the  commence- 
ment of  the  current  year  (1853)  have  been  on  questions  of  great 
practical  interest.  In  his  remarks  in  the  debate  on  "  Continental 
Rights  and  Eelations,"  he  pays  a  graceful  and  feeling  tribute  to 


HIS  POSITION  IN  THE  SENATE.  Ixxxix 

the  character  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  whom  he  claims  as  the  au- 
thor of  the  policy  on  re-colonization,  generally  ascribed  to  Presi- 
dent Monroe.  Passing  to  the  discussion  of  the  policy  itself,  he 
gives  his  reasons  for  holding  to  its  substantial  truth,  while  he  pro- 
tests against  the  manner  in  which  it  was  brought  in  issue  on  that 
occasion.  The  speech  is  gravely  and  forcibly  argued,  though  not 
without  incidental  touches  of  effective  satire. 

In  February,  the  important  question  of  our  "  Relations  with 
Mexico  and  the  Continental  Railroad"  was  debated  in  the  Senate. 
The  speech  of  Gov.  Seward  on  that  subject  abounds  in  lucid  views 
of  national  policy. 

On  the  proposal  to  abolish  or  suspend  the  duty  on  foreign  rail- 
road iron,  Gov.  Seward  addressed  the  Senate  in  one  of  his  most 
characteristic  speeches.  This  was  followed  by  a  speech  on 
"  Texas  and  her  creditors,"  which  closes  the  list  of  his  senatorial 
efforts  at  the  time  we  are  now  writing.  Both  of  these  speeches 
are  marked  by  the  admirable  union  of  statistics,  general  reasoning, 
and  lofty  sentiment,  of  which  the  texture  of  his  deliberative 
eloquence  is  composed. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Gov.  Seward  has  not  been  an  idle  spectator 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate.  His  voice  has  been  raised  on  the 
most  momentous  questions  in  those  halls  "where  debate  either 
wins  a  great  influence  or  utterly  wastes  the  speaker's  power." 
No  one  can  doubt  the  effect  of  his  active  participation  in  the 
senatorial  strife  on  his  own  fame.  His  speeches  have  not  only 
been  heard  with  profound  respect  in  the  august  forum,  where  they 
were  delivered,  but  they  will  be  read  with  instruction  and  delight 
by  the  most  intelligent  portion  of  our  republican  population. 

Rich  in  significant  lessons  of  statesmanship,  abounding  in  the 
treasured  wisdom  of  years  of  study  and  practice  in  affairs,  breath- 
ing a  spirit  of  the  most  expansive  humanity,  and  adorned  with 
the  classic  embellishments  of  a  susceptible  and  refined  taste,  they 
form  an  interesting  memorial  of  the  progress  of  American  letters. 
Gov.  Seward,  we  are  persuaded,  will  henceforth  occiipy  as  envia- 
ble a  place  among  the  writers  of  his  country,  as  he  has  long  held 
among  her  practical  statesmen. 

In  addition  to  his  elaborate  speeches  in  the  Senate,  Gov.  Seward 
has  often  taken  an  incidental  part  in  important  debates,  a  record 
of  which  is  preserved  in  the  present  collection.  After  the  decease 
of  Henry  Clay  and  Daniel  Webster,  he  delivered  a  tribute  to  the 
memory  of  each  of  those  illustrious  statesmen,  in  chaste  and  dis- 


XC  CONCLUSION. 

criminating  sketches  of  their  characters.  For  justness  and  vigor 
of  conception,  elevation  of  feeling,  and  felicity  of  diction,  these 
are  scarcely  inferior  to  the  best  specimens  of  mortuary  eloquence 
in  our  language. 

Gov.  Seward  has  now  been  four  years  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  Of  his  conduct  in  that  exalted  station,  the 
speeches  and  debates  now  published,  afford  the  most  authentic 
illustration.  Amid  the  heated  excitements  of  the  day,  he  has 
been  found  calm,  watchful,  and  earnest,  on  the  post  of  duty. 
Trustfully  biding  his  time,  he  has  cherished  no  anxiety  to  vindi- 
cate his  reputation  from  the  aspersions  of  his  opponents,  save  by 
a  uniform  course  of  well-doing.  In  the  most  ardent  zeal  of  sena- 
torial debate,  he  has  never  lost  sight  of  the  decorum  belonging 
to  the  place.  Often  the  subject  of  violent  personalities,  he  has 
preserved  the  courtesy  of  the  gentleman  and  the  dignity  of  the 
legislator.  No  provocation  has  induced  him  to  violate  the  ameni- 
ties of  refined  social  life,  nor  to  reply  to  ill-mannered  abuse  by  a 
retort  in  kind. 

His  fidelity  to'his  political  associates  has  often  been  the  subject 
of  remark.  During  the  administration  which  followed  that  of  Gen. 
Taylor,  to  be  a  friend  of  Gov.  Seward  was  to  be  proscribed.  The 
price  of  such  partiality,  to  an  office-h older,  was  invariable  removal. 
But  that  administration  came  into  power  through  the  action  of  the 
whig  party,  from  which  he  derived  his  trust.  Hence,  it  never 
failed  to  receive  the  support  of  Gov.  Seward.  He  has  neglected 
no  suitable  occasion  to  defend  it ;  he  has  never  been  one  of  its 
assailants.  It  is  said,  and  we  believe  truly,  that  he  has  promptly 
sustained  all  its  nominations  to  office. 

But  the  most  remarkable  feature  in  his  public  career  is 
his  consistent  adherence  to  principle.  Guided  not  by  a  low 
worldly  policy,  or  motives  of  secular  expediency,  but  by  the 
radiant  light  of  ideal  truth,  his  course  has  been  like  the  path  of  a 
noble  ship  on  the  ocean,  faithfully  steering  by  celestial  lumina- 
ries. His  past  history  presents  the  best  assurance  of  his  future 
activity.  Whatever  the  sphere  in  which  he  may  be  placed,  it  is 
certain,  that  he  will  bring  exalted  talents  to  the  performance  of 
the  humblest  as  well  as  the  noblest  duties,  postponing  all  private 
interests  to  his  love  of  humanity,  and  seeking  as  the  highest  boon 
of  a  manly  life,  the  realization  of  truth,  justice,  and  love,  in  the 
institutions  of  society. 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OE  NEW  YORK 


VOL.  1—1. 


IN 


THE    SENATE  OF  NE¥  YORK. 


THE    MILITIA    SYSTEM.* 

FEBRUARY    11,    1831. 

I  AM  aware  that  the  amendments  I  have  submitted  are  such  an 
innovation  upon  the  existing  militia  system,  as  to  require  if  not 
an  apology  for  offering  them,  at  least  an  explanation  of  the  neces- 
sity for  a  change  of  some  kind.  Complaints  long  and  loud 
have  been  made  of  the  defects  of  the  system,  and  the  oppres- 
sive burden  it  imposes  upon  the  people  ;  these  complaints  have, 
at  length,  reached  the  executive  ear,  and  have  drawn  from  the 
governor  a  recommendation  to  the  consideration  of  the  legislature. 
I  do  not  know  that  I  should  have  ventured  to  suggest  the  amend- 
ments, had  not  the  committee  of  the  Senate,  after  mature  delibera- 
tion, reported  a  bill  which  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  but 
as  going  immediately  to  change  the  wrhole  system,  and,  in  the 
result,  to  abolish  it.  This  bill  originates  in  the  deep  conviction,  I 
doubt  not,  of  the  committee,  that  some  law  must  be  proposed  to 
relieve  the  people  from  the  trouble  of  military  duty  under  the 
present  organization.  I  confess  that  it  is  not  my  object  to  destroy 
the  system  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  that  I  would  relieve  the  people 
from  the  burden  it  imposes — I  would,  if  possible,  preserve  and 
improve  the  militia,  and  would  elevate  it  so  that  it  might  be  what 
it  ought  to  be — the  ornament  of  the  country,  and  the  safeguard  of 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people.  Whether  the  plan  which  I 
have  proposed  is  the  proper  one  to  effect  so  desirable  an  object,  is 
a  question  for  the  consideration  of  the  committee.  I  confess  that 

*  This  appears  to  have  been  Mr.  Scward's  first  parliamentary  effort. — ED. 


2          SPEECHES  IX  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

it  is  not  perfect.  And  after  explaining  and  defending  it,  I  shall 
be  willing  to  listen  to,  and  adopt  any  better  plan  which  shall  be 
proposed  by  gentlemen  of  greater  experience  than  myself. 

The  course  of  the  remarks  -which  I  propose  to  make  will  lead 
me  briefly  to  delineate  what,  in  my  judgment,  the  militia  system 
ought  to  be  ;  to  consider  the  evils  and  defects  of  the  present  sys- 
tem, and  to  state  the  manner  in  which  I  suppose  the  plan  con- 
tained in  my  amendments  is  calculated  to  correct  and  remedy 
those  evils  and  defects. 

What  the  militia  system  was  designed  and  ought  to  be  is  to  be 
learned  from  a  consideration  of  the  objects  of  its  establishment, 
and  the  provisions  in  the  Constitution  concerning  it.  The  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  show  that  the  framers  had  in  view  the 
possible  exigencies  following : 

1st.  The  attempt  by  the  government  or  its  officers  to  exercise 
tyranny  over  the  people  ; 

2d.  Resistance  to  the  government  and  laws ; 

3d.  Invasion: 

And,  in  some  way,  the  Constitution  intended  to  provide  by  a 
national  militia  for  the  public  safety  and  individual  security,  in 
the  event  of  one  or  all  of  the  exigencies  I  have  mentioned. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  intended 
to  secure,  as  two  fundamental  principles  of  government : — The 
right  of  the  people,  at  all  times,  to  keep  and  bear  arms ;  and, 
secondly,  the  principle — That  a  portion  of  the  people  (not  limited) 
should  be  enrolled,  organized,  armed,  and  to  some  extent  disci- 
plined. These  principles  were  the  basis  of  the  militia  system. 

Having  reference,  then,  to  the  objects  of  its  establishment,  it 
needs  little  argument  to  show  that  the  militia  system  was  intended 
to  be,  and  should  be  such  an  one  as — 

1st.  Should  embody  the  necessary  force,  and  no  more. 

The  necessary  force,  in  order  to  answer  its  purposes ;  and  no 
more  than  the  necessary  force,  because  an  augmentation  beyond 
the  necessity  would  be  oppressive  to  the  people,  and  would  tend 
to  embarrass  and  defeat  the  whole  system. 

2d.  Such  as  should  insure  the  advantage  of  that  force,  being 
well  and  sufficiently  armed,  which  is  expressly  derived  from  the 
language  of  the  Constitution. 

3d.  Such  as  should  insure  some  degree  of  discipline,  if  not  a 


THE   MILITIA  SYSTEM.  3 

rigorous  and  perfect  discipline,  at  least  such  as  would  preserve  the 
integrity  of  the  system. 

4th.  Such  as  should  insure  such  an  organization  of  the  force 
thus  to  be  embodied,  armed  and  disciplined,  as  would  render  it 
susceptible  of  being  called  by  the  government  into  action,  and 
directed,  in  the  event  of  any  of  the  exigencies  contemplated  by 
its  founders. 

If  I  was  asked  what  are  the  defects  of  the  existing  system,  I 
should  answer — and  I  submit  to  the  committee  whether  the  answer 
would  be  too  broad — that  the  defects  consist  in  a  destitution  of 
every  one  of  the  qualities  which  I  have  mentioned  as  requisites  of 
the  system,  as  it  was  intended  to  be. 

The  militia  force  is  too  great  and  unwieldy.  By  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  this  state,  a  force  is  embodied,  or  attempted 
to  be  embodied  in  this  state,  consisting  of  more  than  186,000 
troops,  and  the  whole  militia  of  the  United  States  must  be  about 
1,600,000  on  paper — an  army  more  numerous  than  followed  in  the 
train  of  the  Persian  invader,  the  Macedonian  or  the  Roman  con- 
queror ;  more  numerous  than  the  swarms  of  the  Crusaders,  the 
legions  of  the  Corsican,  or  the  hordes  of  the  Autocrat  of  all  the 
Russias.  In  a  country  so  situated  as  to  be  removed  beyond  al- 
most the  possibility  of  invasion  by  foreign  enemies,  in  a  land 
where  the  laws  and  the  government  were  maintained,  not  by  the 
sword  and  the  bayonet,  but  by  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the 
people,  it  would  be  preposterous  to  admit  the  possibility  of  any 
exigency  which  could  require  the  action  of  so  vast  a  military 
force. 

I  know  of  but  one  advantage  to  be  derived  from  maintaining 
the  organization  of  a  force  so  immensely  disproportioned  to  the 
possible  demands  of  the  state  in  even  its  most  troublous  and  peril- 
ous times — which  is  that  the  division  of  military  duty  in  actual 
service  would  render  the  duty  less  oppressive  to  the  citizen.  But 
surely  this  advantage  cannot  be  so  great  as  to  justify,  in  order  to 
secure  it,  a  defeat  of  all  the  other  objects  of  the  organization. 
That  this  immense  expansion,  if  I  may  so  apply  the  word  to  the 
militia  force,  does  tend  to  defeat  all  the  other  objects  of  the  sys- 
tem, will  follow  from  the  considerations  that :  1st.  It  is  known 
and  felt  by  the  militia  themselves  to  be  unnecessary ;  hence,  arise 
clamor  and  disgust.  2d.  The  drilling  of  the  militia  is  enormously 
expensive,  without  the  possibility  of  corresponding  improvement. 


4  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

The  equivalent  provided  in  this  state  for  neglect  to  perform  mili- 
tary duty  is  four  dollars  for  each  individual,  and  all  experience 
proves  that  this  equivalent  is  about  equal  to  the  actual  expense  of 
the  performance  of  the  duty.  Here,  then,  is  in  an  odious  shape  a 
poll-tax  greater,  in  very  many  if  not  in  most  instances,  than  the 
citizen  upon  whom  it  falls  pays  for  the  support  of  government. 

3d.  It  prevents  not  only  improvement,  but  checks  all  military 
pride,  and  is  destructive  of  all  subordination.  The  necessary  sub- 
division of  it,  and  the  consequent  multiplication  of  militia  offices, 
render  those  offices  valueless.  Consequently,  they  are  frequently 
sought  and  filled  by  men  incompetent  to  their  duties ;  and  it  is  a 
notorious  fact,  which  speaks  loudly  on  this  subject,  that  militia 
commissions  are  sought,  held  for  a  week,  a  month,  or  a  year,  and 
then  resigned,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  exemption  from  mili- 
tary duty. 

But  the  numerical  force  is  even  greater  than  is  necessary  to 
secure  the  advantage  before  mentioned  of  an  equal  division  of 
military  service.  Let  us  suppose  a  case  to  have  happened  in  this 
state,  requiring  the  militia  to  be  called  into  actual  service. 
10,000  troops  would  be  as  large  a  force,  I  think,  as  would  be  re- 
quired on  any  such  occasion.  By  a  law  of  the  United  States,  the 
same  militia-men  cannot  be  retained  longer  than  three  months,  at 
any  one  time,  in  actual  service.  If  you  make  a  new  levy  of 
10,000  men  every  three  months,  it  will  be  four  years  and  six 
months  before  your  whole  186,000  shall  have  been  called  into 
service. 

Again,  50,000  of  the  United  States  militia  would  be  as  large  a 
number  as  the  general  government  could  on  any  emergency  re- 
quire, at  a  given  time,  in  actual  service.  If  you  make  new  levies 
of  50,000  each,  at  the  expiration  of  every  successive  three  months, 
your  militia  will  not  all  share  in  the  duties,  privations,  and  perils, 
in  a  period  less  than  eight  years. 

Again,  experience  has  proved  that,  owing  to  the  defective  or- 
ganization of  this  immense  force,  it  cannot  be  called  upon  even  to 
the  limited  extent  contemplated  by  the  Constitution.  While  I 
admit  and  glory,  as  does  every  true  citizen,  in  the  achievements 
of  portions  of  the  militia  during  the  last  war,  it  still  is  a  matter  of 
history  that  the  government,  for  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the 
war,  at  almost  all  points,  relied  upon  the  regular  or  enlisted  troops. 

The  second  object  which,  as  I  before  stated,  was  had  in  view  in 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM  0 

the  organization  of  the  militia,  was  that  the  force  embodied, 
whether  great  or  small,  should  be  well  and  sufficiently  armed. 
Has  this  object  been  secured  ?  Look  at  the  arms  exhibited  at  any 
regimental  muster,  and  you  will  perceive  that  they  have  but  one 
of  the  qualities  requisite,  that  is,  the  variety  of  warlike  weapons — 
guns,  blunderbusses,  rifles,  fusils,  muskets,  with  flints  and  without 
them,  some  wanting  locks,  some  wanting  stocks,  and  some  want- 
ing barrels,  to  say  nothing  of  the  arms  of  the  elite — walking-canes, 
whip-stocks,  and  umbrellas.  I  believe  I  have  seen  sixty  muskets 
in  a  company,  of  which  not  ten  would  speed  a  bullet. 

The  next  great  defect  of  the  system  is  the  want  of  discipline. 
The  officers  command  without  skill,  the  men  obey  with  reluctance 
and  evasion.  The  whole  business  of  a  day  solemnly  and  with 
pomp  and  ceremony  set  apart  for  military  inspection,  exercise  and 
review,  consists  in  a  hasty  tossing  the  musket  from  the  soldier  to 
the  inspector,  and  back  again,  a  march  into  the  field,  and  forming 
crookedly  upon  a  straight  line,  the  troops  passing  once  in  front  of 
the  general,  the  general  passing  once  in  front  of  the  troops  ;  and 
it  is  a  day  of  uncommon  achievement,  if,  before  the  sun  has  set, 
there  is  found  time  to  march  out  of  the  field,  with  the  same  mili- 
tary order  observed  in  marching  in.  There  is  no  improvement, 
no  subordination,  and  what  renders  the  case  still  worse  is,  that 
often,  very  often,  public  opinion  discountenances  alike  a  desire  of 
improvement  and  attempts  at  discipline,  and  even  encourages  in- 
subordination. 

The  last  defect  to  which  I  have  occasion  to  refer,  is,  that  the 
organization  is  such  that  the  militia,  or  any  considerable  portion 
of  it,  cannot,  without  great  and  almost  insurmountable  difficulty, 
be  called  into  actual  service.  The  men  hardly  know  the  officers, 
and  the  officers,  with  the  aid  of  their  muster-rolls  and  rosters,  can 
hardly  find  their  men.  I  remember,  though  I  was  very  young  at 
the  time,  that,  during  the  last  war,  a  portion  of  the  militia  in  that 
part  of  the  state  in  which  I  then  resided,  were  drafted  for  the  de- 
fence of  the  city  of  New  York.  Of  those  who  were  drafted,  those 
who  were  pleased  to  go,  went ;  those  who  were  pleased  to  remain, 
did  not  go.  Occasionally  a  sergeant  and  guard  patrolled  the  coun- 
try in  search  of  the  delinquents,  but  those  delinquents  either  were 
not  found,  or  escaped  on  their  march  to  quarters.  At  the  close 
of  the  war,  if  I  recollect  right,  a  court-martial  imposed  a  fine  upon 
those  of  the  delinquents  who  co.uld  be  found,  to  be  served  with 


6  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

process ;  those  who  had  no  means  to  pay  the  fines,  escaped  by 
their  insolvency — and  those  who  had  means,  resorted  to  higher 
tribunals,  which  abolished  the  court-martial  and  its  sentences. 

Such  are  some  of  the  prominent  defects  of  the  militia  system  as 
it  now  exists.  It  gives  me  no  pleasure  to  describe  them — and 
especially  in  this  place.  But  when  the  public  mind  has  become 
disgusted  with  the  system,  and  public  opinion  will  no  longer  sus- 
tain it,  I  deem  it  an  imperative  duty  to  know  the  defects,  in  order, 
if  possible,  to  devise  a  remedy,  and,  failing  to  do  so,  then  to  decide 
whether  the  system  thus  irremediably  defective,  shall,  with  all  its 
errors  and  imperfections,  be  abolished. 

In  the  course  of  my  remarks,  if  it  has  become  necessary  to  state 
the  causes  of  these  defects  in  the  militia  system,  I  will,  to  avoid 
repetition,  barely  recapitulate  them.  They  are  the  unnecessary 
extension  of  the  system.  The  consequent  irksomeness  of  the  duty 
imposed ;  the  want  of  skill  and  experience  in  the  officers ;  the 
want  of  uniform,  and  discipline,  and  subordination  in  the  ranks, 
and  as  a  consequence  of  all  these,  the  almost  entire  destitution  of 
military  spirit.  By  all  classes  it  is  felt  to  be  burdensome  and  un- 
profitable. All  classes,  even  the  Friends,  who  being  so  small  a 
portion  of  the  whole  population,  and  who,  otherwise,  by  their  en- 
terprise, and  industry,  and  economy,  might  well  be  allowed  to 
purchase  indulgence  to  their  conscientious  scruples  against  the 
acts  of  war,  are  not  unfrequently  seen  lying  in  jail  to  expiate  the 
offence  of  refusing,  for  conscience  sake,  their  quota  of  contribu- 
tion to  the  expense  of  this  system,  so  fair  in  theory  and  on  paper — 
so  useless  and  oppressive  in  operation. 

It  is  next  in  the  order  of  my  remarks,  to  speak  of  the  plan 
which  I  propose  as  a  remedy  for  the  evils  I  have  mentioned ; 
which  is — 

1st.  To  reduce  the  number  of  the  militia  who  shall  be  required 
to  perform  military  duty,  to  some  much  smaller  number — say 
50,000,  60,000,  or  70,000 ;  the  last  being,  I  believe,  about  the  num- 
ber of  uniformed  troops,  in  the  present  organization,  and  I  would, 
I  confess,  prefer  to  sustain  those  whose  public  spirit  and  military 
ardor  has  induced  them  to  assume  their  present  organization. 

2d.  To  make  the  performance  of  military  duty  voluntary,  as  far 
as  practicable. 

This  force,  if  it  consist  of  but  50,000  men,  may  be  subdivided 
into  5  divisions,  10  brigades,  50  regiments,  and  500  companies. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM.  7 

After  what  I  fear  has  been  a  tedious  detail  of  the  evils  and  defects 
of  the  present  system,  it  will  be  necessary  to  state,  but  very  briefly, 
the  advantages  of  the  proposed  system.  They  would  be — that  the 
force  could  be  well  and  easily  organized.  It  could  be  uniformed 
— disciplined  to  some  considerable  extent — not  only  the  officers, 
but  the  troops  could  be  improved  in  military  skill.  All  this  could 
be  done,  because  there  are  nearly,  if  not  quite,  the  requisite  num- 
ber of  young  men,  who  would  be  able  and  willing  to  encounter 
the  expense  of  filling  up  the  ranks.  And  if  necessary  that  legis- 
lative encouragement  should  be  afforded,  it  could  be  done  to  any 
requisite  extent  at  much  less  expense  than  is  now  drawn  from  the 
yeomanry  of  the  country  to  sustain  the  present  defective  system. 
Men  would  then  seek  and  obtain  the  offices  in  the  militia,  who 
would  have  the  ability  and  spirit  necessary  for  the  discharge  of 
the  important  duties  attached  to  them. 

Adopt  such  a  system,  and  I  feel  assured  that  the  militia,  instead 
of  being  degraded,  ridiculed  and  despised,  will  be  respected, 
honored  and  valued  ;  men  enough  will  volunteer  to  take  its  most 
subordinate  ranks,  from  the  patriotic  desire  to  be  among  those 
upon  whom  the  republic  will  rely  for  its  defenders,  and  from  the 
honorable  ambition  for  military  promotion. 

But  it  has  been  observed  that  we  should  be  assuming  the  legis- 
lation which  properly  belongs  to  Congress.  I  do  not  think  so.  I 
am  of  opinion  that  the  whole  change  proposed  falls  within  the 
scope  of  the  powers  reserved  by  the  Constitution  to  the  states. 
And  while  I  admit  that  Congress  may  prescribe  this  as  a  general 
plan,  I  cannot  see,  in  the  absence  of  any  actual  legislation  by 
Congress,  why  the  state  should  not,  if  it  were  expedient,  remodel 
the  system.  I  think  no  hope  can  be  entertained  that  Congress 
will  take  any  measures  upon  the  subject.  The  general  govern- 
ment has  suffered  the  militia  system  to  deteriorate  year  after  year, 
and  even  now  looks  quietly  on,  while,  in  several  states  of  the 
tTnion,  measures  are  in  actual  progress,  practically  to  abolish  the 
whole  system.  Besides,  in  these  days  of  high-toned  assertion  of 
state  rights,  I  doubt  not  the  attempt  by  Congress  to  legislate 
upon  the  subject,  would  be  defeated  by  the  jealousy  of  the  state 
sovereignties. 

Why,  then,  should  not  the  state  of  New  York  take  the  lead  in 
this  reformation  of  the  militia  system  ?  Will  it  not  be  worthy  of 
her  character  for  enterprise  and  patriotism  ? 


8          SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

"We  have  one  inducement,  at  least,  to  do  so — the  consideration 
that  legislate  unwisely  as  we  may,  we  can  make  the  system  no 
worse  than  it  is. 

I  do  not  wish  to  "be  understood  that  the  amendments  I  have 
offered  are  sufficiently  perfect  to  carry  into  effect  the  plan  I  have 
suggested.  I  have  not  offered  them  under  such  a  belief.  The 
only  object  in  offering  them  is  to  enable  me  to  bring  the  subject 
before  the  Senate  to  the  end  that,  if  my  views  should  receive 
favor  with  the  Senate,  a  plan  may  be  perfected,  containing  the 
requisite  provisions  in  detail.  I  offer  the  amendments  only  as  an 
approximation  to  the  system  I  wish  to  see  adopted ;  and  I  believe 
that,  if  no  nearer  approach  shall  now  be  made,  the  incorporation 
of  the  principles  contained  in  the  amendment  will  not  be  without 
value.  For  it  will  reduce  the  numerical  force  of  the  militia  one 
half ;  it  will  relieve  one  half  of  the  people  now  suffering  under  the 
oppression  from  the  useless  burden  imposed  upon  them,  and  it 
will  regain  some  portion,  if  not  an  half,  of  the  public  confidence 
for  the  militia,  as  the  means  of  public  defence. 

Mr.  SEWARD  then  examined  and  answered  some  objections  to  the  system  he  proposed, 
derived,  as  was  said,  from  the  laws  of  Congress  relative  to  the  militia. 

Finally,  the  time  has  come  to  decide  whether  the  militia  system 
shall  be  preserved  or  abandoned.  It  can  be  no  longer  maintained 
without  radical  alteration  and  amendment.  And  though  members 
may  wish  to  preserve  it,  they  will  find  it  as  hopeless  as  the  attempt 
to  retain  the  snow  which  melts  more  rapidly  with  the  pressure  of 
the  hand. 

I  have  looked  upon  the  system  with  veneration,  while  I  have 
felt  and  acknowledged  the  justice  of  the  popular  complaint  against 
it ;  and  under  the  influence  of  mingled  solicitude  arising  from  both 
these  causes,  I  have  long  endeavored  to  find  a  remedy  for  the  evils 
I  have  mentioned.  Of  all  which  I  have  imagined  and  heard  sug- 
gested, this  appears  to  me  most  feasible,  as  well  as  most  likely  to 
be  effectual.  It  is  with  a  degree  of  diffidence  I  have  ventured  to 
give  my  views  on  the  subject,  which  only  can  be  overcome  by  a 
sense  of  my  responsibility,  before  I  can  give  a  vote  which  will  go 
to  the  eventual  abolition  of  the  system  ;  to  offer  the  best  exertion 
in  my  power  to  procure  it,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  people.  I  have  always  felt  that  the  militia 
system  is  a  relic  of  the  age  of  the  Eevolution  too  valuable  to  be 
idly  thrown  away ;  that  it  is  a  strong  and  beautiful  pillar  of  the 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM.  9 

government  which  ought  not  to  be  rudely  torn  from  its  base.  But 
if  no  effectual  remedy  can  be  found  in  legislative  wisdom,  I  shall 
feel  myself  bound,  though  with  reluctance,  to  vote  at  all  hazards 
for  such  a  bill  as  will  redress  the  evils  the  system  imposes,  and  to 
trust  to  the  exigencies  of  invasion,  insurrection,  or  oppression,  for 
a  regeneration  of  the  military  spirit  which  brought  the  nation  into 
existence,  and  will,  if  restored  in  its  primitive  purity  and  vigor, 
be  able  to  carry  us  through  the  dark  and  perilous  ways  of  national 
calamity  yet  unknown  to  us,  but  which  must,  at  some  time,  be 
trodden  by  all  nations. 


10  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 


ELECTION   OF    MAYOES   BY  THE   PEOPLE. 

APRIL    22,    1831. 

INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. — The  question  before  the  Senate  was  the  mode  of  choosing  or 
appointing  mayors  of  the  several  cities  of  the  state.  Motions  having  been  made  in 
favor  of  their  appointment  by  the  governor,  by  the  governor  and  senate,  and  by  the 
legislature,  Mr.  SEWARD  offered  an  amendment  proposing  that  they  be  elected  by  the 
people.  He  then  proceeded  to  address  the  committee  in  support  of  his  amendment ;  he 
spoke  at  some  length,  and  assigned  various  reasons  in  favor  of  his  amendment.  He 
was  decidedly  opposed  to  conferring  any  more  appointing  power  either  upon  the  gover- 
nor, or  the  governor  and  senate,  or  the  legislature  ;  and  the  amendment  of  the  gentle 
man  from  the  second  (Mr.  TALLMADGE)  proposed  to  do,  either  or  all  of  these  things.  He 
contended  that  it  was  a  sound  principle,  adopted  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
taking  the  appointment  of  mayors  out  of  the  power  of  the  legislature. 

At  another  stage  of  the  proceedings,  Mr.  BENTON'S  amendment  being  under  discus- 
sion, which  was  that  the  mayors  of  all  the  cities  in  the  state  should  be  elected  or 
appointed  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  shall  direct,  Mr.  SEWARD  offered  the  follow- 
ing remarks. — ED. 

WHAT  is  the  state  of  the  question  before  the  Senate  ?  The  pro- 
vision required  by  the  city  of  New  York  is,  that  the  mayor  of  that 
city  shall  be  elected  by  the  people.  The  amendment  under  con- 
sideration proposes  that  the  legislature  shall  hereafter  have  the 
right  to  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  that  officer  shall  be  elected 
or  appointed. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  office  of  mayor  is  one  of  local  interests, 
duties  and  responsibilities,  and  that  it  is,  in  the  abstract,  right  and 
proper  that  the  mayor  should  be  elected  by  the  people  in  that 
city.  Why,  then,  should  not  this  provision,  conceded  to  be  ab- 
stractly right  and  proper,  be  adopted  ?  Is  it  to  be  rejected  on  the 
ground  of  distrust  of  the  people  ?  No  such  distrust  is  avowed, 
and  I  am  therefore  bound  to  believe  none  is  indulged.  Only  one 
argument  has  been  urged  in  support  of  the  amendment,  which 
was,  that  it  was  expedient  that  the  mode  of  election  or  appoint- 
ment of  this  officer  should  be  made  a  subject  of  legislative  dis- 


ELECTION  OF  MAYORS.  11 

cretion,  in  order  that  it  might  from  time  to  time  be  varied 
according  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  that  city.  This  argu- 
ment supposes  that  the  present  application  is  based  upon  slight 
grounds,  and  that  the  city  of  New  York  would  not  long  be  con- 
tent with  any  one  mode  of  election  or  appointment.  This  pre- 
sumption is  altogether  unwarranted.  So  far  as  concerns  this 
application,  we  are  distinctly  informed  that  it  is  made  because  by 
the  late  alteration  in  the  charter  of  that  city — the  Common 
Council  was  divided  into  two  houses — and  the  mayor  was  vested 
with  the  power  of  negativing  by  his  veto  the  ordinances  of  those 
houses — and  it  is  submitted  to  us  that  the  officer  with  whom  this 
power  is  vested  ought  not  to  derive  his  office  from  that  body,  or 
be  responsible  to  it  in  derogation  of  whose  power  he  is  to  exer- 
cise his  veto.  Who  will  deny  that  there  is  merit  in  this  proposi- 
tion ?  Who  will  contend  that  the  governor  of  this  state,  who  is 
invested  with  concurrent  legislative  powers,  should  by  derivation 
of  his  office  or  otherwise  be  made  amenable  to  the  legislature. 
This  application,  then,  so  far  from  being  groundless,  is  correct  in 
principle,  and  in  harmony  with  the  structure  of  our  government. 
And  what  grounds  are  there  for  the  presumption  that  the  people 
of  the  city  of  New  York  will  again  require  an  alteration  in  the 
mode  of  electing  their  mayor  if  the  present  application  shall  pre- 
vail ?  Under  the  old  Constitution  of  this  state,  the  mayor  was 
appointed  by  the  council  of  appointment,  Was  the  city  of  New 
York  then  restive  and  clamorous  for  change  ?  No ;  that  city 
acquiesced  until  the  loud  and  deep-toned  and  universal  popular 
complaint  against  the  corruptions  of  the  council  of  appointment  de- 
manded its  abolition,  and  a  new  depository  of  the  appointing 
power  of  the  state.  Then,  in  accordance  with  the  more  demo- 
cratic principles  which  prevailed  at  that  day,  the  appointment  of 
mayor  was  confided  to  the  immediate  representatives  of  the 
people  of  the  city  in  their  Common  Council.  Have  the  people 
of  that  city  since  been  unquiet  on  this  subject?  No,  sir;  they 
have  never  asked  for  a  change,  until  by  another  radical  alteration 
in  the  powers  and  duties  of  this  office,  and  in  the  organization  of 
the  Common  Council,  a  necessity  has  arisen  for  the  application 
now  made. 

Again,  sir,  the  tendency  of  all  our  principles  of  government  is 
to  democracy ;  the  new  Constitution  took  the  appointment  from 
the  council  of  appointment,  and  conferred  it  upon  the  immediate 


12  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

representatives  of  the  people.  There  is  but  one  more  change 
before  yon  reach  absolute  democracy ;  that  is  the  one  now  pro- 
posed, and  conceded  to  be  proper.  Are  gentlemen  afraid  that  the 
people,  once  invested  with  this  power,  will  come  back  again  and 
sue  us  to  relieve  them  from  its  responsibilities  ?  Such  an  instance 
would  be  anomalous  in  the  history  of  government. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  appointment  or  election  of  this  officer 
ought  not  to  "  be  bound  up  in  constitutional  bonds  ;" — that  it  ought 
to  be  left  to  the  legislature.  Sir,  I  think  if  there  be  any  right  of 
the  people  which  ought  to  be  bound  up  in  constitutional  bonds,  it 
is  the  right  of  electing  their  magistrates.  If  there  be  any  right 
belonging  to  the  people  of  the  city  of  New  Tork  which  ought  to 
be  bound  up  "  in  constitutional  bonds,"  it  is  the  right  guarantied 
to  them  of  electing,  either  by  their  immediate  representatives,  or 
by  their  own  ballots,  the  highest  local  magistrate  in  their  city, 
without  being  subjected  to  the  caprice  of  party  in  your  legisla- 
ture. Gentlemen  who  support  the  amendment  say  they  are  in 
favor  of  allowing  the  mayor  to  be  chosen  by  the  people ;  will 
their  amendment  carry  out  their  views?  Amend  the  Constitution 
as  they  propose,  and  will  the  people  then  have  that  right  ?  No ; 
but  it  will  then  be  left  to  the  legislature  of  the  state  to. determine 
whether  the  mayor  shall  be  elected  by  the  people  or  by  the  Com- 
mon Council,  or  appointed  by  the  legislature,  or  by  the  governor 
and  Senate — and  to  revoke  that  decision  at  pleasure. 

Gentlemen  do  indeed  assure  us  that  the  legislature  will  never 
deprive  the  people  of  that  city  of  the  privilege  of  electing  this 
officer,  unless  at  their  own  solicitation.  "We  are  asked  if  we  be- 
lieve any  legislature  would  so  deprive  them,  and  we  are  even  told 
that  to  entertain  such  an  apprehension,  is  to  arrogate  to  ourselves 
all  the  virtue  and  the  purity  of  the  present  and  future  legislatures. 
J,  sir,  arrogate  to  myself  no  such  extraordinary  portion  of  virtue 
and  purity,  and  yet  I  have  less  confidence  in  legislative  bodies 
than  is  necessary  to  induce  my  consent  to  restore  to  this  legisla- 
ture a  power,  of  which,  within  my  own  recollection,  it  has  been 
solemnly,  and  for  cause,  deprived  by  the  Constitution.  I  will  not 
say  that  the  legislature  ever  would  deprive  the  people  of  New 
York  of  the  right  to  elect  the  first  magistrate  of  their  city ;  but  I 
can  safely  say  that  legislatures  have  reluctantly  parted  with 
power,  and  have  sometimes  upon  poor  pretexts  assumed  it.  But, 
sir,  the  answer  to  the  gentleman's  inquiry  is  furnished  by  the  Con- 


ELECTION  OF  MAYORS.  13 

stitution.  The  incorporation  of  the  provision  in  the  Constitution 
which  reserves  the  appointment  of  the  mayor  by  the  Common 
Council,  shows  that  the  people  distrust  the  purity  and  virtue  of 
the  legislature.  It  is,  I  believe,  a  broad  and  living  principle  of 
democracy,  that  the  tendency  of  delegated  power  is  always  to  its 
own  aggrandizement,  and  that  the  safety  of  the  rights  of  the 
people  is  secured  by  their  jealousy  of  encroachment.  So  much 
distrust  of  the  legislature  as  the  Constitution  expresses,  and  so 
much  as  is  founded  in  the  maxims  of  our  government,  and  no 
more,  I  entertain. 

What  was  the  evil  which  called  into  existence  the  convention 
which  framed  your  Constitution?  Other  grounds  of  objection 
there  were  indeed  to  your  old  Constitution,  but  the  crying  evil 
was  the  corruption  and  abuses  of  the  council  of  appointment, 
subjected  to  the  exercise  of  a  mighty  and  controlling  central 
power  at  Albany.  What  was  the  great  reform  made  by  that  con- 
vention ?  Other  reforms  there  were,  but  that  which  was  the  most 
valuable  was  the  abolition  of  the  council  of  appointment,  and  the 
distribution  among  different  depositories  more  immediately  de- 
rived from  and  subjected  to  the  popular  will,  and  of  the  appoint- 
ing power  of  the  state.  Will  not  the  people  regard  this  as  an 
attempt  to  bring  back  to  the  central  power  this  portion  of  the 
appointing  power  ?  Will  they  not  regard  it  as  a  precursor  of  other 
attempts  to  restore  that  state  of  things  which  it  demanded  the 
convention  of  1821  to  overthrow  ?  Yes,  sir,  they  will  so  regard 
it,  and  I  think  I  may  say  for  that  portion  of  them  which  are  my 
constituents,  that  any  proposition  tending  to  increase  at  the 
expense  of  popular  rights  and  privileges,  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature or  executive,  will  be  met  and  resisted  as  an  encroachment. 

For  these  reasons,  I  am  opposed  to  that  portion  of  the  amend- 
ment which  provides  for  subjecting  to  legislative  action  the  mode 
of  the  appointment  of  the  mayor  of  the  city  of  New  York.  I 
am  in  favor  of  giving  the  election  to  the  people,  and  of  extend- 
ing the  same  right  of  election  to  all  the  cities  in  the  state,  and  I 
shall  avail  myself  of  a  distinct  motion  to  amend  for  that  purpose. 


14-         SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 


REMOVAL    OF    THE    DEPOSITS. 

JANUARY    10,    1834. 

. — The  question  was  upon  the  joint  resolutions  from  the  Assembly,  which  were 
as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  Senate  concur,)  That  the  removal  of  the  public  deposits  from  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  is  a  measure  of  the  administration  of  which  we  highly  ap- 
prove. 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  Senate  concur,)  That  the  senators  from  this  state  be  directed,  and 
the  representatives  from  this  state  be  requested,  to  oppose  any  attempt  to  restore  the 
deposits  to  the  Bank  of  die  United  States. 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  Senate  concur,)  That  we  approve  of  the  communication  made  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  his  Cabinet  on  the  eighteenth  of  September  last, 
and  of  the  reasons  given  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  relative  to  the  removal  of  the 
deposits. 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  Assembly  concur,)  That  the  conduct  of  the  Bank,  in  attempting,  at 
a  time  of  general  prosperity,  to  produce  pecuniary  distress  and  alarm,  and  in  exercising 
its  power  with  a  view  to  extort  a  renewal  of  its  charter  from  the  fears  of  the  people, 
affords  of  itself  full  justification  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  confidence  of  the  government 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  Senate  concur,)  That  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States 
ought  not  to  be  renewed." 

IT  needs  no  soothsayer's  aid,  Mr.  President,  to  foresee  that  these 
resolutions  will  pass ;  that  they  will  pass  with  a  majority  so  great, 
that  I  may  appear  presumptuous  in  having  raised  my  feeble  voice 
against  them.  Nevertheless,  there  is  in  this  legislature,  as,  accord- 
ing to  the  genius  of  our  government,  there  always  should  be,  a 
minority  ;  and  that  minority,  although  small  in  number,  represents, 
on  this  occasion,  little  less  than  one-half  of  the  people  of  this  state. 
The  universal  language  of  that  part  of  the  press  which  speaks  their 
sentiments,  and  the  inquiries  and  fears  everywhere  heard,  indicate 
that  the  measures  which  this  legislature  are  called  upon  to  ap- 
prove, are  regarded  by  that  portion  of  the  people  of  this  state  with 
fearful  apprehensions,  and  a  painful  conviction  that,  in  the  adop- 
tion of  those  measures,  the  Constitution  has  been  violated.  I  pray 
the  Senate  to  remember  that,  although  here  these  resolutions  have 
so  many  supporters,  willing  to  adopt  them  without  debate,  neither 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  15 

boldness  of  assumption,  nor  superiority  of  numbers,  is  always  the 
test  of  truth ;  and  that  the  rivets  of  despotism  will  have  entered 
the  heart  of  the  country,  when  such  apprehensions  and  convictions, 
widely  prevalent  among  the  people,  shall  cease  to  call  forth,  in 
the  public  councils,  a  voice  in  their  behalf.  I  participate  in  those 
apprehensions  and  convictions;  and  thus  participating,  should 
deem  myself  recreant  to  my  trust,  were  I  to  suffer  these  resolutions 
to  pass  in  silence.  For  the  minority  here,  and  for  all  that  minority 
in  the  state,  then,  I  speak.  I  wish  they  had  an  abler  and  more 
eloquent  advocate,  but  I  am  sure  they  could  not  have  one  more 
firm  or  more  sincere. 

These  resolutions  are  "unnecessary.  The  subject  to  which  they 
relate  is  already  under  discussion  in  both  houses  of  Congress.  A 
majority  of  those  whom  you  propose  to  instruct,  will  vote  as  you 
desire  without  instruction.  A  minority  will  not  vote  so,  although 
requested,  and  the  numbers  of  both  are  determined.  Does  any 
senator  ask  how  I  know  the  sentiments  of  the  representatives  of 
this  state  in  Congress  ?  I  will  answer,  and  if  any  member  startle 
at  my  answer,  it  will  be  not  because  the  information  is  new,  but 
because  it  is  proclaimed  here.  The  majority  of  the  representatives 
will  vote  as  I  have  predicted,  because  of  convictions  produced  by 
the  same  mysterious  intuition  which  has  so  suddenly  enlightened 
this  legislature.  If  they  have  ever  had  doubts  on  this  matter,  they 
have  all  been  dispelled  by  the  same  agency,  which  is  sufficiently 
efficacious  to  carry  these  resolutions  as  triumphantly  through  this 
Senate,  as  it  carried  them  through  the  House  of  Assembly ;  where, 
although  the  resolutions  relate  to  a  subject  foreign  from  the  affairs 
of  the  state,  they  were  passed  by  a  vote  of  118  to  9  in  the  first 
week  of  the  session,  without  argument,  and  without  even  the  cere- 
mony of  printing  the  documents  which  the  resolutions  approve. 
Be  satisfied,  then,  that  the  minds  of  the  majority  of  our  represent- 
atives in  Congress  will  be  as  effectually  illuminated  as  your  own, 
and  that  their  reluctant  wills  will  yield  to  the  behest  of  the  same 
power  which  decrees  your  own  action.  The  minority  will  vote  as 
I  have  stated,  because  they  will  examine  and  discuss  the  question, 
and  will  arrive  at  their  conclusion,  with  the  aid  only  of  truth  and 
reason.  Their  wills  cannot  be  subdued  by  that  mysterious  power 
to  which  I  have  alluded.  I  say  not  too  much  for  them,  when  I 
assert  they  will  spurn  your  insidious  request,  as  much  as  they 
would  defy  your  arbitrary  instructions. 
VOL.  1—2. 


16         SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Sir,  I  will  not  say  that  these  resolutions  have  such  a  purpose, 
but  I  may  and  will  say  that  resolutions  of  this  nature  are  often,  if 
not  always,  the  machinery  of  demagogues,  who  seek  by  the  use 
of  them  to  accomplish  objects  which  they  could  not  accomplish 
by  the  constitutional  and  proper  action  of  legislative  bodies.  In 
such  cases,  the  affectation  of  a  desire  to  instruct  is  a  veil  too  thin 
to  conceal  the  object  of  the  measure.  It  is  in  this  light  such  reso- 
lutions are  regarded  abroad  by  those  states  whose  interests  are 
adverse  to  the  interests  of  those  who  adopt  them.  They  excite 
suspicion,  jealousy,  and  prejudice  ;  and  hence  other  states  will  en- 
deavor to  counteract  their  effect  by  adverse  resolutions.  Such  is 
their  natural  and  inevitable  tendency,  as  it  regards  our  sister 
states.  And  what  can  you  expect  in  Congress  as  the  legitimate 
effects  of  such  resolutions,  even  though  sincere  and  for  laudable 
purposes,  but  blind,  vindictive  controversy,  scarcely  veiled  by  the 
forms  and  proprieties  of  debate  ?  Every  state  has  the  same  con- 
stitutional right,  and  may  as  properly  exercise  the  power  of  in- 
struction. Suppose  all  to  exercise  it,  where  would  be  the  freedom, 
and  what  the  value  of  debate  ?  Suppose  a  part  only  to  exercise 
it,  what  would  be  the  security  of  those  who  should  neglect  to  avail 
themselves  of  it,  against  partial  and  corrupt  legislation  ?  And  for 
measures  in  Congress  carried  by  the  force  of  such  machinery, 
what  can  you  expect  from  those  states  against  whose  interests  and 
principles  they  militate,  but  combinations,  resistance,  nullification 
and  secession  ?  It  was  by  passionate,  violent  resolutions  of  this 
kind,  that,  during  the  late  war,  the  Eastern  states  were  brought 
into  a  posture  of  disobedience  to  the  general  government ;  and 
those  who  are  curious  enough  to  examine  will  find  that  the  states 
of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  commenced  by  resolutions  not  un- 
like these,  that  career  of  disorganization  which  so  lately  seemed  to 
threaten  the  immediate  dissolution  of  the  Union. 

But  I  will  not  appeal  to  the  attachment  of  this  House  to  the 
Union.  The  fashion  of  the  day  has  changed  here  within  the  last 
year,  and  state  pride  is  now  the  passion  to  be  called  into  action  ! 
We  would  have  what  is  called  our  proper  influence  in  the  national 
government.  We  would  acquire  the  power  in  the  administration 
of  the  government,  to  which  our  greater  strength  and  numbers, 
and  our  long  deference  to  other  states,  entitle  us.  If  we  win 
either,  sir,  it  must  be  by  patriotism,  not  force  ;  by  generous  bear- 
ing, not  selfish  assumption.  Could  we  win  both  by  inglorious 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  17 

means,  we  should  obtain  but  "  a  fruitless  crown." 
thus  acquired  would  be 

"  A  barren  sceptre  in  our  gripe, 
Thence  to  be  wrenched  with  an  unlineal  hand, 
No  son  of  ours  succeeding." 

I  shall  discuss  these  resolutions  in  my  own  order.     The  fourth 
resolution  is,  "  that  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  ought  not  to  be 
renewed."     "Whatever  may  be  the  propriety  of  acting  upon  the 
others,  I  can  discover  no  necessity  for  passing  this  resolution. 
Two  years  ago,  a  similar  resolution  was  adopted  by  this  legisla- 
ture :  but  that  was  accompanied  by  a  preamble  stating  that  the 
bank  had  applied  to  Congress  for  a  renewal  of  its  charter.     The 
preamble,  though  an  insufficient  reason  for  the  conclusion  that  the 
charter  ought  not  to  be  renewed,  was  a  colorable  pretext  for  con- 
sidering the  subject.     But  that  reason  does  not  exist  now.     No 
sjich  question  is  before  Congress.     If  it  can  be  required  of  us  to 
legislate  for  the  advice  of  Congress,  I  trust  it  is  enough  to  legislate 
upon  subjects  on  which  they  are  called  to  act.     This  resolution, 
then,  is  confessedly  unnecessary  for  any  legitimate  purpose.     It  is 
unjust  to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  therefore  it  is  deroga- 
tory from  the  dignity  and  character  of  the  state.     If  it  be  not  de- 
signed to  influence  Congress,  it  must  be  required  for  effect  at  home 
or  abroad.     It  cannot  be  for  effect  abroad.     The  voice  of  the 
state  on  this  subject  has  been  spoken  and  repeated  ;  this  reitera- 
tion can  only  serve  to  cause  both  our  sincerity  and  firmness  to  be 
questioned.     And  for  what  effect  at  home  ?     I  can  conceive  of 
none  but  that  the  resolution  may  serve  as  a  party  shibboleth  to 
members  on  entering  the  legislature.    Two  years  since,  I  advocated 
here  the  necessity,  in  regard  to  the  proper  action  of  the  general 
government,  and  the  commercial  interests  of  the  country,  of  a 
Bank  of  the  United  States.     On  that  subject  my  opinions  have 
undergone  no  change,  and  as  the  question  was  then  elaborately 
discussed,  I  trust  I  may  expect  from  any  member  of  the  legisla- 
ture who,  on  that  occasion,  stood  by  my  side,  but  has  now  fallen 
off,  the  reasons  which  have  wrought  the  change  in  his  opinions. 

An  unscrupulous  press  denounces  all  as  interested  who  refuse 
to  join  in  the  crusade  against  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  It 
may  therefore  be  prudent  for  one  so  humble  as  myself  to  guard 
against  misrepresentation.  I  have  never  had  any  connection  with 
the  United  States  Bank,  or  with  any  of  its  branches.  On  me  it 


18  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

has  bestowed  none  of  its  favors.  The  mammoth,  as  it  is  called,  is 
one  of  those  incorporeal  existences,  which,  like  one  of  several 
heads,  (said  to  reside  not  distant  from  this  place,*)  can  be  felt, 
though  not  seen.  I  am  as  far  from  the  influence  of  the  former, 
as  all  who  hear  me  will  admit  I  am  from  that  of  the  latter.  Hy 
associations  have  been  with  those  whose  interests  are  connected 
with  state  banks.  Politically,  I  have  been  opposed,  as  well  to  the 
exclusive  friends,  as  to  the  exclusive  opponents  of  the  United 
States  Bank.  I  deem  a  national  bank  necessary.  In  its  present 
form,  I  would  not  vote  for  a  renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  existing 
bank.  "With  modifications  limiting  the  power  to  establish  branches, 
and  subjecting  the  capital  to  the  same  taxes  imposed  by  states 
upon  local  banks,  I  would  vote  for  the  renewal  of  this  bank,  rather 
than  create  a  new  institution  with  the  same  powers,  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  gratifying  those  desirous  for  a  new  distribution  of 
stock.  With  these  views,  I  shall  vote  against  the  fourth  resolu- 
tion, not  because  I  am  in  favor  of  renewing  the  present  charter, 
but  because  I  have  no  other  mode  to  avoid  committing  myself 
against  the  continuance  of  any  bank  with  a  proper  charter. 

On  the  occasion  to  which  I  have  referred,  when  I  expressed  my 
views  at  large  upon  this  interesting  subject,  and  in  this  place,  I 
stood  by  the  side  of  an  honest,  fearless,  and  mighty  man  in  debate. f 
What  small  aid  I  could,  I  added  to  that  great  eftbrt,  in  which  he 
advocated  the  constitutionality,  and  demonstrated  the  necessity  of 
a  Bank  of  the  United  States.  In  that  same  effort,  with  that  keen 
vision  which  in  him  seemed  almost  prophetic,  he  warned  the  peo- 
ple of  this  state,  of  the  calamities  which  would  follow  the  abolition 
of  an  institution,  the  basis  of  which  was  laid  by  the  father  of  our 
country.  His  tongue  is  mute  now,  his  head  is  low  in  the  earth, 
and  the  heart  which  sent  forth  that  earnest  appeal,  no  longer  beats 
even  with  wishes  for  his  country's  good.  Standing  in  the  place 
he  then  occupied,  carried  back  by  the  relation  of  the  subject  to 
that  occasion,  and  oppressed  by  the  reflection  that  I  have  assumed 
the  responsibility  then  so  nobly  shared,  and  so  greatly  discharged 
by  him,  I  would  not  unnecessarily  venture  upon  a  discussion  of 
this  all-important  question.  The  day  is  coming  which  will  give 
fearful  confirmation  of  the  alarms  we  then  sounded  here.  The 
springs  of  our  country's  adversity  are  already  sending  up  their 

*  The  Albany  Regency.  t  The  Hon.  William  H.  Mavnard. 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  19 

waters  beneath  our  feet ;  these  streams  will  increase  in  number 
and  volume,  and  will  mingle  and  swell  into  a  tide  which  human 
wisdom  cannot  stay  from  sweeping  over  the  land.  Then,  loud 
and  senseless  declamation,  then,  the  reckless  instigation  of  popular 
prejudice  and  passion  will  no  longer  avail.  Then,  in  that  fearful 
day  of  suffering  for  past  delusion,  and  of  retribution  for  past 
abuses  of  a  confiding  people,  the  thousand  warnings  which  have 
been  uttered  in  vain,  may  peradveiiture  be  remembered.  Until 
then,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  in  the  councils  of  the  state,  let  the 
argument  be  postponed. 

The  first  resolution  is  in  these  words  : — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  removal  of  the  deposits  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  is  a 
measure  of  the  administration  of  which  we  highly  approve." 

When  I  regard  this  resolution  as  one  which  is  designed  to  have 
effect  abroad,  and  to  remain  upon  our  journals  as  a  part  of  the 
record  of  these  interesting  proceedings,  it  seems  to  me  very  un- 
happily expressed.  The  necessity  for  being  explicit  in  our  instruc- 
tions to  Congress,  is  quite  as  obvious  as  the  necessity  for  giving 
instructions  at  all.  A  journal  which,  as  if  by  magnetic  sympathy, 
assumes  to  settle  this  important  question  before  it  has  been  con- 
sidered here,  and  to  pronounce  the  judgment  of  this  Senate  before 
the  resolutions  have  been  debated,  has  called  them  "  the  voice  of 
New  York."  Let,  then,  that  voice  be  as  intelligible  and  une- 
quivocal as  it  will  be  trumpet-tongued.  Both  houses  of  Congress 
are  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  this  important  subject.  On  one 
side  are  employed  all  the  power  and  eloquence  of  argument  de- 
rived from  truth,  prudence,  justice,  and  national  faith;  on  the 
other  is  boasted  that  more  simple  and  effective  machinery  which 
dispenses  with  the  exercise  of  the  reasoning  powers,  and  relieves 
members  from  the  responsibility  of  motives,  as  well  as  debate.  I 
can  imagine  something  of  the  scene  in  the  Senate.  The  Senator 
from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CLAY]  concludes  a  philippic  against  the 
President's  daring  usurpation,  imbued  with  all  the  impassioned 
eloquence  of  Fox.  The  Senator  from  New  Jersey,  [Mr.  SOUTHARD] 
in  a  speech  which  combines  both  the  argument  and  invective  of 
Burke,  strips  the  atrocious  measure  of  the  pretexts  of  "  the  public 
convenience,"  and  "  the  promotion  of  the  public  interests."  The 
Senator  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  CALHOUN]  not  altogether  lost 
to  his  country,  defends  the  violated  constitution  with  an  argument 
bo  full  of  truth,  of  patriotism,  and  overwhelming  eloquence,  as 


20  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

almost  to  redeem  him  from  the  censure  of  unpardonable  errors. 
The  administration  "which  you  approve,"  is  left  to  rely  alone 
upon  the  intemperate  efforts  of  the  gladiatorial  Senator  from 
Missouri  [Mr.  BEXTON.]  What  wonder  that  the  numerous  auditory 
of  citizens  exhibit  their  sympathy  in  the  triumph  of  truth,  reason, 
and  justice.  Sir,  the  world  nowhere  else  exhibits  so  glorious  a 
scene.  It  is  like  that  of  a  Koman  Senate  on  the  eve  of  being  sub- 
jected, but  not  yet  ready  to  own  a  dictator.  Mark,  I  pray  you, 
the  countenance  of  him  who  recently  assumed  the  chair,  [Mr.  VAN 
BUKEX.]  The  "  wreathing  smiles  of  triumph  "  so  recently  boasted, 
have  given  place  to  a  gloom  upon  his  brow,  expressive  of  despond- 
ency. The  solemn  silence  which  precedes  the  final  vote  is  broken 
by  the  annunciation  of  a  messenger  from  Xew  York.  The  "  em- 
pire state"  sends,  as  she  has  done  before,  a  "  missive  bearing  heal- 
ing on  its  wings,"  to  her  drooping,  "  favorite  son."  Mark  the 
proud  flash  of  his  eye  while  he  breaks  the  seal.  "JResolved,  That 
the  removal  of  the  deposits  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States 
is  a  measure  of  the  administration — of  which  we  highly  approve." 
"  Please  read  the  resolution  again,"  says  the  critical  Senator  from 
South  Carolina,  "  I  do  not  understand  whether  the  Legislature  of 
New  York  mean  to  approve  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits  by  the 
administration,  or  of  the  administration  itself."  "  Xon-committal 
again,  Mr.  President !"  exclaims  the  ardent  Senator  from  Ken- 
tucky. " Long  habit  of  speaking  en  doulU  entendre"  says  the 
sarcastic  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  WEBSTER]  "  has  ren- 
dered the  Legislature  of  Xew  York  unable  to  speak  without  equiv- 
ocation." The  chagrined  "favorite  son"  turns  to  the  worthy 
senators  from  this  state,  and  angrily  asks,  "  Have  we  left  no  body 
at  home  to  do  our  work  better  than  this  F  But  the  trio  are  re- 
lieved by  a  happy  thought  from  the  Senator  from  Missouri. 
"  Why,  it's  clear  it's  only  going  the  whole  ;  the  Legislature  of  Xew 
York  approve  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits  ly  the  administration 
because  it  is  an  act  of  the  administration  of  which  they  approve." 
Sir,  I  would  spare  our  state  pride  such  a  mortification,  but  it  is  no 
business  of  mine  to  mend  these  matters. 

But  I  cannot  plead  ignorance.  I  have  learned  from  an  organ 
to  which  I  have  before  referred,  how  this  resolution  is  to  be  under- 
stood here;  and  shall  therefore  discuss  it  as  intending  to  approve 
of  the  removal  of  the  deposits. 

I  shall  vote  against  the  resolution,  because,  in  my  judgment, 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  21 

the  removal  of  the  deposits  was  an  act  illegal  and  unconstitu- 
tional. By  whom,  sir,  was  this  act  committed  ?  I  answer  and 
aver  that  it  was  the  act  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.* 
I  admit,  that  in  the  communication  of  Mr.  Taney,  as  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  he  says  the  act  was  done  by  himself,  and  that 
the  President,  in  his  annual  message,  informs  Congress  that  "  the 
Secretary  had  deemed  it  expedient  to  direct  the  removal  of  the 
deposits,  and  he  had  concurred  in  the  measure."  Against  these 
authorities,  from  so  respectable  a  source,  I  regret  to  be  compelled 
to  use  the  authority  of  the  President  himself.  But  the  document 
from  which  I  shall  read  is  one  you  are  prepared  to  adopt,  and 
although  it  clash  with  that  of  the  Secretary,  which  you  are  also 
prepared  to  adopt,  it  must  be  good  evidence.  I  leave  those  who 
adopt  both  to  reconcile  their  incongruity. 

What,  then,  are  the  facts  ?  On  the  18th  day  of  September, 
1833,  the  deposits  were  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  William 
J.  Duane  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  Roger  B.  Taney 
was  Attorney  General.  On  that  day  the  President  read  in  his 
Cabinet,  and  the  next  day  gave  tp  the  world,  the  document  from 
which  I  read  as  follows : 

"  From  all  these  considerations,  the  President  thinks  that  the  state  banks  ought  imme- 
diately to  be  employed  in  the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenue,  and 
the  funds  now  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  drawn  out  with  all  convenient 
dispatch." 

"  The  President  again  repeats,  that  he  begs  his  Cabinet  to  consider  the  proposed 
measure  as  his  own,  in  the  support  of  which  he  shall  require  no  one  to  make  a  sacrifice 
of  opinion  or  principle.  Its  responsibility  has  been  assumed,  after  the  most  mature 
deliberation  and  reflection,  as  necessary  to  preserve  the  morals  of  the  people,  the  free- 
dom of  the  press,  and  the  purity  of  the  elective  franchise,  without  which  all  will  unite 
in  saying,  that  the  blood  and  treasure  expended  by  our  forefathers  in  the  establishment 
of  our  happy  system  of  government,  will  have  been  vain  and  fruitless.  Under  these 
convictions,  lie  feels  that  a  measure  so  important  to  the  American  people  cannot  be  com- 
menced too  soon ;  and  he  therefore  names  the  first  day  of  October  next  as  a  period 
proper  for  the  change  of  the  deposits,  or  sooner,  provided  the  necessary  arrangements 
with  the  state  banks  can  be  made." 

Mr.  Duane  refused  to  make  the  order  required  by  the  President 
for  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  and  was  removed  because  he  did 
so  refuse.  Mr.  Taney,  who  had  avowed  himself  ready  to  make 
the  order,  was  instantly  appointed  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 
did  make  the  order. 

After  this  review  of  the  transaction,  who  will  say  that  the 
deposits  were  not  removed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
or  that  Mr.  Taney  was  more  than  the  mere  instrument  used  to 
effect  the  removal?  And  yet  both  the  Secretary  and  President 

*  General  Jackson. 


22  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

gravely  inform  Congress  that  he,  Mr.  Taney,  the  Secretary,  "had 
deemed  it  expedient  to  direct  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  and 
the  President  had  concurred  in  the  measure."  As  well  might 
the  commissioners  appointed  by  William  IV.,  in  his  name,  to 
open  or  prorogue  parliament,  say  they  opened,  they  prorogued 
parliament,  and  it  was  not  the  king  their  master.  You  who  are 
admirers  of  Andrew  Jackson,  to  whom  do  you  ascribe  the  glory 
of  the  act?  You  will  answer,  "It  was  the  President."  You  who 
lament  his  misrule,  upon  whom  do  you  bestow  the  censure  ? 
You  will  answer,  "  the  President." 

And  now  let  me  ask,  is  it  the  same  Andrew  Jackson,  who, 
on  the  18th  September,  1833,  read  this  document  in  his  Cabinet, 
declaring  the  act  of  removing  the  deposits  his  own,  and  on  the 
first  Tuesday  of  December  sent  this  document  to  Congress,  de- 
claring that  it  was  the  act  of  the  Secretary.  Sir,  in  the  one,  it 
was  the  soldier,  the  hero,  who  spoke ;  in  the  other,  it  was  the 
politician. 

And  now,  ha'ving  established  that  the  measure  was  the  proper 
act  of  the  President,  let  us  next  inquire,  what  right  had  the 
President  to  remove  the  deposits  ?  They  are  the  funds,  the  trea- 
sures of  the  government.  They  were  in  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  by  virtue  of  law. 

Is  the  President  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ?  ]S"o  ;  but  it  is 
claimed  by  the  President  that  he  has  absolute  control  of  the  trea- 
sury department.  To  me  this  assertion  seems  so  bold,  so  reckless, 
so  fearful  in  its  consequences,  that  I  must  be  indulged  with  an 
opportunity  to  examine  it,  It  rests  upon  the  unsupported  assump- 
tion that  the  treasury  is  an  executive  department.  But  the  act 
of  Congress,  by  which  it  was  established,  repudiates  the  assump- 
tion. All  the  other  departments  are,  in  the  respective  acts  by 
which  they  are  established,  declared  to  be  executive  departments. 
That  of  the  treasury  is,  on  the  other  hand,  called  a  department. 
But  I  go  further,  and  maintain  that  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
Constitution  it  cannot  be  an  executive  department.  Its  duties 
are,  to  collect,  preserve,  and  disburse  the  revenues.  Those  reve- 
nues are,  exclusive  of  the  executive,  under  the  management,  care, 
and  keeping  of  the  representatives  of  the  people,  the  legislature. 
From  the  impracticability  of  the  managing,  guarding,  and  dis- 
bursing those  moneys  by  Congress,  it  results  that  there°must  be  a 
delegation  of  a  portion  of  those  duties;  that  delegation  mio-ht  be 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  23 

made  to  a  committee  of  their  own  body,  or  to  an  agent  respon- 
sible to  them,  and  subject  to  their  supervision.  Congress  could 
not  delegate,  and  therefore  are  not  to  be  presumed  to  have  dele- 
gated that  power  to  the  executive.  Such  a  law  would  be  uncon- 
stitutional and  void.  The  act  of  Congress  did  delegate  to  the 
secretary  a  discretion  properly  their  own,  to  remove  these  deposits. 
That  discretion  Congress  intended  he  should  exercise,  when  the 
deposits  should  be  removed  by  him.  It  was  his  discretion,  then, 
.that  should  have  been  exercised,  not  the  discretion  of  the  Presi- 
dent. Yet  for  the  conscientious  exercise  of  that  discretion  he  was 
removed  by  the  President,  and  the  deposits  were  withdrawn  from 
the  bank,  contrary  to  the  judgment  he  gave  in  exercising  that  dis- 
cretion. If  it  be  true,  then,  that  the  President  has  assumed  and 
exercised  that  discretion  which  Congress  has  reposed  in  the  secre- 
tary, and  could  not  constitutionally  confer  on  the  President,,  it 
irresistibly  follows  that  the  President  has  usurped  the  discretion 
and  duties  of  the  secretary.  And  it  is  precisely  because  it  was 
such  an  usurpation,  that  the  Secretary  and  President  equivocate 
concerning  their  respective  action  on  the  subject,  when  they  come 
before  Congress.  Now  it  is  not  the  President  who  has  removed 
the  deposits,  nor  was  it  done  upon  his  responsibility,  but  it  is  the 
secretary,  Mr.  Taney,  and  it  was  done  upon  his  responsibility. 
It  cannot  be  that  such  an  evasion  can  avail.  He  that,  as  a  legis- 
lator, will  say  that  Mr.  Taney,  and  not  the  President,  removed 
these  deposits,  could,  as  a  judge,  say  that  a  will  was  executed  by 
a  living  testator,  although  one  devisee  supported  his  lifeless  corse 
while  another  guided  the  hand  which  wrote  the  testament. 

And  how,  sir,  let  me  next  inquire,  is  this  usurpation  excused 
or  justified  ?  Solely  by  the  conceded  power  of  the  President  to 
remove  and  appoint  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  his  gene- 
ral duty  to  see  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed.  Grant  this 
a  sufficient  justification,  and  what  follows?  The  President  has 
unlimited  command  over  the  treasury.  Upon  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  principle  assumed, 
upon  the  President  it  is  devolved  to  collect,  preserve,  and  disburse 
the  entire  revenues.  The  Secretary  at  War,  it  is  conceded  on  all 
hands,  is  an  executive  officer,  and  equally  subordinate.  It  requires 
but  little  imagination  to  suppose  what  might  have  been  done, 
(and  if  the  position  assumed  by  the  President  be  true,  lawfully 
done,)  at  another  Cabinet  council.  "Rally  the  army,"  the  Presi- 


24         SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

dent  might  say  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  "that  I  may  put  myself 
at  their  head."  The  secretary  refuses.  "Colonel  Benton,  my 
gallant  friend,  will  you  issue  the  order?"  "Ay,  I  will  do  any- 
thing '  to  serve  under  such  a  chief.' 3:  "  Sir,  you  are  Secretary 
of  War."  The  army  is  rallied.  "  An  order  for  ten  millions,  on 
my  responsibility,  not  on  your  oath,"  (says  the  President  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.)  The  conscientious  secretary  refuses. 
"Mr.  Taney,  you  are  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,"  replies  the 
President,  and  the  order  is  instantly  given.  Such  are  the  powers  . 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  assumed  in  these  docu- 
ments. And  now,  when  Congress  shall  have  conceded  the  power 
claimed,  will  gentlemen  tell  me  where  on  the  face  of  this  earth  is 
despotism  to  be  found,  if  it  be  not  here  ?  Louis  Philippe  owed 
his  elevation  to  the  throne  of  France  to  his  declaration  to  the 
citizens  of  Paris  through  General  Lafayette,  that  he  believed 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  the  best  that  had  ever  been 
conceived.  Sir,  if  this  is  that  Constitution,  it  is  more  despotic 
than  the  prerogatives  for  which  Louis  XYI.  suffered  on  the 
guillotine. 

The  usurpation  of  the  secretary's  powers  is  not  the  most  alarm- 
ing feature  in  this  unprecedented  transaction.  It  is  the  defiance 
of  the  supervisory  power  of  Congress  uttered  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States.  Yes,  sir,  in  this  very  document,  under  the 
President's  own  hand,  we  are  told  that  the  power  of  the  secretary 
over  these  deposits  is  unqualified,  and  as  the  secretary  is  in  all 
things  responsible  to  the  executive,  it  follows  that  the  power  of 
the  President  over  them  is  also  unqualified. 

It  is  true  the  President,  with  the  meekness  of  Csesar,  when  he 
thrice  refused  the  crown  upon  the  Lupercal,  regrets  and  is  sur- 
prised to  find  his  duties  so  great.  But  he  does  not  shrink  from 
the  responsibility  devolved  upon  him.  Sir,  have  we  lost  sight  of 
our  Constitution  ?  Or,  in  truth,  have  we  none  ?  Congress  have 
sole  and  sovereign  control  over  these  deposits,  the  revenues  of  the 
nation.  One  year  ago,  this  administration,  "  which  you  approve/' 
thought  so.  Witness  the  communication  of  Mr.  McLane  to  Con- 
gress, infonning  them  that  he  had  instituted  an  inquiry  into  the 
safety  of  the  deposits,  and  recommending  the  subject  to  their 
consideration.  That  investigation  was  had,  both  in  Congress  and 
by  the  agent,  and  upon  consideration  and  debate,  the  House  of 
Representatives  instructed  the  secretary  not  to  remove  the  de- 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  25 

posits.  Thus  baffled  in  procuring  from  Congress  the  desired  order 
for  the  removal,  the  President  caused  them  to  be  removed  upon 
his  own  responsibility,  and  says  that  although  he  submitted  the 
matter  to  Congress,  it  was  not  to  ask  their  action,  but  to  procure 
that  very  advice  which  he  defies. 

So  insulting  a  defiance,  so  bold  an  assumption  of  legislative 
power,  might  possibly  be  excused  by  urgent  motives  or  by  stern 
necessity.  Sir,  what  are  the  motives  alleged,  and  what  was  the 
necessity  for  this  precipitant  and  violent  departure  from  the  con- 
stitutional limits  of  the  executive  prerogative  ?•  "Was  it  to  save 
the  public  money  in  danger  of  being  wasted  ?  No ;  that  is  not 
alleged.  But  to  save  the  country  from  "  the  commercial  distress 
which  must  ensue,"  if  the  deposits  should  be  suffered  to  remain 
where  by  law  they  were  required  to  be  deposited  until  the  expira- 
tion of  the  charter  of  the  bank,  "  and  to  save  the  people  from  the 
corruption  of  the  bank."  These  exigencies  existed  wdth  equal 
force  when  the  House  of  Representatives  resolved,  six  months 
before,  that  the  deposits  ought  to  remain  in  the  bank.  Congress 
was  to  meet  within  sixty  days  after  the  time  appointed  for  the 
removal,  and  if  they  had  strangely  overlooked  these  exigencies, 
there  would  then  have  been  ample  time  to  apply  the  remedy. 
There  was  then  no  extreme  necessity  for  the  interposition  of  the 
President. 

And  now  I  pray  senators  to  consider  what  it  is  they  are  called 
upon  to  do  ?  It  is  to  instruct,  not  our  representatives,  but  the 
representatives  of  the  people  of  this  state,  to  ratify  and  confirm 
this  usurpation,  and  surrender  to  one  man  not  only  the  treasures 
of  this  nation,  but  their  own  powers  and  duties  with  our  own.  If 
you  will  send  these  instructions,  send  one  more  with  them.  Tell 
them  to  forswear  the  memory  of  their  fathers,  their  country  and 
their  God.  You  will  then  have  left  them  no  more  of  evil  to 
commit,  no  more  shame  to  incur.  And  who  are  we,  sir,  to 
give  these  instructions  ?  Ourselves  the  representatives  of  that 
same  betrayed  people.  Sir,  I  have  confessed  that  I  had  no  hope 
that  any  thing  I  could  say  would  change  a  single  vote  in  this 
house.  Yet,  when  my  fears  are  all  excited  by  a  view  of  the  ruin- 
ous and  lasting  consequences  of  this  usurpation,  and  when  I  reflect 
on  the  precipitancy  which  marks  this  act,  I  could  kneel  before 
this  Senate  and  implore  them,  could  conjure  them  by  our  common 


26  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

hopes,  our  common  interests,  and  our  common  recollections,  to 
pause  before  the  reckless  measure  be  accomplished. 
NThe  third  resolution  is  in  these  words  : 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  Senate  concur,)  That  we  approve  of  the  communication  made  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  to  his  Cabinet  on  the  eighteenth  of  September  last, 
and  of  the  reasons  given  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  relative  to  the  removal  of  the 
deposits.'" 

Sir,  to  what  limit  of  legislative  self-abandonment  is  it  proposed 
to  us  to  go  ?  Last  year,  in  a  debate  upon  the  proceedings  of  the 
convention  in  South  Carolina,  another  senator*  and  myself  pro- 
tested against  adopting,  in  gross,  an  argumentative  report,  although 
made  by  a  committee  of  this  house.  "We  had  the  success  then, 
(unusual  success  for  that  senator  and  myself  on  such  occasions,)  to 
prevail  upon  the  Senate  to  limit  their  approval  to  the  general 
views  and  conclusions  of  a  contradictory  and  unmeaning  report. 
And  what  have  we  now  before  us  ?  We  are  called  upon  to  adopt 
and  approve  an  official  document,  not  of  this  house,  nor  even  per- 
taining to  this  state,  merely  because  it  bears  the  President's  name  : 
although,  when  solemnly  called  upon  by  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  he  has  refused  to  acknowledge  it ;  a  document  for  the  au- 
thenticity of  which  we  have  only  the  imprint  of  a  partisan  news- 
paper ;  a  document  contradicted,  too,  by  the  other  paper  with 
which  it  is  associated  in  the  resolution,  and  by  the  annual  message 
of  the  President  to  Congress.  Sir,  we  do  not  pass  a  bill  for  a 
turnpike  road,  though  it  be  introduced  by  a  member  of  the  house, 
until  it  is  twice  read,  referred  to  a  committee,  reported  upon  by 
them,  submitted  to  a  committee  of  the  whole  house,  and  again 
solemnly  read.  And  yet  this  document  has  never  been,  and  in 
this  house  never  will  be,  once  read ;  it  has  been  referred  to  no 
committee,  and  we  are  indebted,  we  are  told,  to  courtesy  to  the 
minority  for  its  being  printed  one  day  before  we  are  required  to 
discuss  it.  Sir,  you  will  search  in  vain  through  your  voluminous 
journals  for  a  precedent  for  such  legislation  as  this.  And  if  you 
go  back  to  the  history  of  that  country  from  which  we  derive  our 
forms  of  legislative  proceeding,  you  will  look  in  vain  for  a  parallel, 
until  you  reach  the  history  of  that  pliant  parliament  which  suc- 
cessively tendered  its  approval  and  ratification  of  the  successive 
marriages  and  divorces  of  Henry  YIH.  Sir,  there  is  no  name  in 
this  nation  which  could  exact  so  humiliating  a  sacrifice  of  legis- 

*  The  Hon.  Albert  H.  Tracy. 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  27 

lative  dignity  as  this,  but  the  name  of  Andrew  Jackson.  And 
now,  "  in  the  name  of  all  the  gods  at  once,"  who  is  this  Andrew 
Jackson  that  we  "  must  bend  our  knees  if  he  but  look  on  us  " — 
nay,  that  we  must  thus  propitiate  the  condescension  of  a  look — 
that,  "  when  he  bids  "  us,  aye,  imMdden,  we  must  "  mark  him, 
and  write  his  speeches  in  our  'booksT'1  Is  he  greater  than'  the 
father  of  our  country  ?  And  yet,  in  all  the  enthusiasm  of  national 
gratitude  for  independence  bestowed  upon  us,  was  never  so  humi- 
liating a  sacrifice  offered  to  WASHINGTON  ?  He,  sir,  would  have 
spurned  the  legislature  of  a  free  state  that  would  have  laid  such 
a  resolution  at  his  feet. 

Sir,  it  is  settled,  whether  wisely  or  unwisely,  that  the  circulating 
medium  of  the  country  must  be  a  paper  currency.  The  condition 
of  that  currency  concerns  every  man's  weal  in  the  land.  When  it 
is  unsound,  it  produces  those  hard  times  which  we  have  often  only 
imagined,  but  are  now  experiencing.  When  it  is  sound,  it  pro- 
duces those  good  times,  the  enjoyment  of  which  makes  us  forget- 
ful of  the  cause  which  produced  them.  That  currency,  when 
healthful,  raises  the  value  of  your  bank  stock ;  it  adds  to  the  value, 
not  only  of  the  annual  products  of  your  farms,  but  of  the  farms 
themselves.  Upon  its  condition  it  may  depend  whether  your  mer- 
chandise, judiciously  prosecuted,  shall  be  profitable  or  unprofitable, 
and  whether  your  manufacturing  or  mechanical  operations  shall 
yield  a  reward  for  your  industry  ;  whether  you  be  able  to  collect 
your  credits,  or  pay  your  debts.  That  currency  has,  until  recently, 
been  a  long  time  sound  and  uniform,  and  the  world  has  never 
witnessed  a  scene  of  greater  prosperity  than  has  been  exhibited  in 
this  country.  That  currency  has,  at  one  period  of  our  history, 
been  diseased,  and  then  it  brought  on  a  train  of  evils  for  which 
legislative  wisdom  in  vain  tried  the  efficacy 'of  relief  laws;  a  state 
of  suffering  from  which  there  was  no  escape  but  the  return  by  the 
road  of  penance  to  a  national  bank,  to  produce  a  healthful  and 
uniform  state  of  the  currency.  So,  sir,  it  will  be  now,  with  the 
only  difference,  that  the  aggravation  of  our  distress  will  be  pro- 
portioned to  our  recent  unprecedented  prosperity.  That  currency, 
sir,  obeys  no  administration ;  the  laws  of  its  action  are  absolute 
and  certain.  It  has  none  of  the  subserviency  of  secretaries,  of 
political  congresses,  or  of  partisan  legislatures.  It  owes  no  alle- 
giance to  him  whom  men  call  King  Caucus  ;  it  is  governed  by  no 
usages  or  customs  of  "  ihepa/rty"  It  defies  the  thunders  of  govern- 


28         SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

ment  newspapers,  those  ministerial  vaticans  whose  anathemas 
infer  political  death.  It  despises  "  the  voice  of  New  Yvrk?  and 
is  reckless  even  of  "  the  voice  of  the  People"  This  mysterious  and 
arrogant  power  can  be  subjected  by  one  agent,  if  he  be  strong, 
wise,  prudent,  faithful  and  persevering.  That  agent  is  he  who, 
with  the  requisite  amount  of  funds  and  credit  at  his  command,  in 
all  the  different  parts  of  this  extended  country,  and  with  specie 
always  in.  its  vaults,  will  diligently  watch  the  motions  of  the  cur- 
rency, and 'with  untiring  industry,  faithfully,  and  at  all  times, 
either  free  of  charge,  or  at  nominal  expense,  transfer  funds  redun- 
dant in  one  part  of  the  Union,  to  supply  deficiencies  elsewhere. 
To  accomplish  this  purpose,  the  agent  must  have,  not  the  favor  of 
the  executive,  nor  yet  the  ear  of  the  ministry,  before  or  behind 
the  throne,  nor  will  even  popular  acclamation  answer  his  need ; 
he  must  have  the  confidence  of  men  of  capital  and  enterprise  in 
this  and  in  foreign  countries.  His  bonds  or  notes  must  be  esteemed 
as  secure  as  his  vaults.  Such  an  agent,  we  have  had ;  it  was  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  The  funds  it  had  were  its  capital  and 
the  deposits  of  the  government.  Its  bond  brought  specie  at  its 
need  from  every  part  of  the  globe,  and  its  notes  in  every  section 
of  this  country  were  more  valued  than  the  precious  metals.  Sir, 
that  agent  you  have  dismissed ;  you  have  substituted  thirty  or 
forty  of  feebler  and  distracted  power  in  its  place.  These  act 
without  concert,  without  responsibility,  and  without  credit.  The 
evil  was  almost  instantaneously  felt ;  you  denied  it  at  first,  then 
confessed  it,  then  promised  it  would  abate  ;  and  still  it  goes  on 
increasing,  and  will  go  on  increasing,  until  your  industry  is  para- 
lyzed, and  your  commerce  arrested  in  all  your  market  towns  on 
the  seaboard.  The  reproof  of  your  error  now  reaches  you  from 
every  commercial  city  in  the  land.  You  know  it  will  come  louder 
and  bolder,  and  ere  you  have  closed  your  duties  here,  it  will  visit 
the  homes  of  your  constituents.  Yes,  you  will  return  to  them  to 
witness  the  depreciation  of  farms  and  merchandise,  and  the  general 
gloom  which  mutual  distrust  and  individual  apprehension  can  so 
effectually  produce.  Your  banks  having  extended  their  discounts 
to  their  utmost  limits,  will  close  their  vaults,  and  the  application 
for  renewals  and  additional  loans  will  be  answered  by  the  visits  of 
the  sheriff  to  the  houses  of  the  debtors.  The  usurer  will  be  abroad 
in  the  country,  as  he  is  now  in  your  cities.  You  have  disturbed 
and  deranged  that  subtle  currency,  and  its  vibrations  will  shake 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  29 

and  unsettle  all  business  transactions.  You  know  it :  you  anti- 
cipate the  complaints  and  the  rebuke  of  your  constituents ;  and 
you  seek  to  deceive  yourselves;  and  then,  self-convinced,  you 
honestly  deceive  them  by  laying  the  evil  at  the  door  of  the  United 
States  Bank,  which,  during  all  this  pressure,  has  been,  with  all 
the  power  you  have  left  it,  discounting  freely  to  relieve  the  people. 
You  may  for  a  while  deceive  them  and  yourselves ;  but  in  the 
extreme  of  suffering,  they  will  awake  to  the  conviction  that  these 
evils  come  from  the  reckless  sacrifice  of  their  prospects,  hopes  and 
enjoyments  in  a  political  warfare  in  which  they  had  nothing  to 
gain,  and  the  calamities  of  which  were  sure  to  fall  upon  them- 
selves. Then  you  will  have  to  give  better  reasons  for  your  votes 
on  these  resolutions  than  were  given  in  the  House  of  Assembly, 
or  than  have  yet  been  given  in  this  house. 

Having  now,  Mr.  President,  stated  generally  the  grounds  of  my 
opposition  to  the  passage  of  these  several  resolutions,  it  remains, 
of  the  plan  I  had  marked  out  for  myself  in  this  debate,  to  consider 
briefly  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  President  and  Secretary  for 
the  removal  of  the  deposits.  I  have  necessarily  anticipated  some 
of  them,  but  will  carefully  avoid  repetition. 

We  are  informed  by  the  President  and  Secretary,  that  the  re- 
moval of  the  deposits  was  directed  because  it  was  required  "  by 
the  public  convenience,  and  would  promote  the  public  interest." 
And  what  is  assigned  as  the  inconvenience  to  be  remedied  ?  It  is 
alleged  that  the  deposits  would  have  been  unsafe,  had  they  been 
suffered  to  remain  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  Grant  me 
patience  if  I  cannot  suppress  my  astonishment  at  this  assertion. 
A  bank  with  35,000,000  of  capital  actually  paid  in,  and  still  re- 
maining there  unwasted,  prohibited  from  loaning  a  dollar  of  thai 
capital  or  of  the  deposits,  a  less  safe  place  for  deposits  than  the 
same  bank  when  engaged  in  promiscuous  and  widely-extended 
loans,  to  the  amount  of  double  its  capital !  If  there  is  a  merchant 
in  my  hearing,  let  him  come  and  learn  financial  wisdom  from  this 
document !  When  you  have  amassed  millions  by  the  hazards  of 
trade,  and  your  capital  and  all  the  funds  your  credit  can  command 
are  afloat  upon  the  seas,  beware  how  you  withdraw  that  capital 
and  call  in  your  debts  !  The  career  of  prosperity  is  safe  if  you 
continue  your  hazards,  but  bankruptcy  and  ruin  will  stare  you  in 
the  face  when  prudence  shall  dictate  to  cease  acquisition,  and  to 
invest  your  capital  and  gains  ! 


30  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

And  now,  sir,  let  us  look  at  this  act  in  all  its  magnitude.  The 
President  has  thrust  out  of  office  the  agent  appointed  by  Con- 
gress, because,  in  his  discretion,  he  conscientiously  refused  to  re- 
move the  deposits.  He  has  put  into  his  place  a  man  who  avows 
that  he  acts,  not  as  the  agent  of  Congress,  but  of  the  President. 
He  has  withdrawn  the  revenues  from  the  bank,  and  has  placed 
them  in  depositories  unknown  to  the  law.  He  has  disturbed  the 
currency,  and  thus  prematurely  brought  distress  and  suffering 
upon  the  nation,  in  the  moment  of  its  highest  prosperity ;  and  all 
because  the  President  could  not  wait  sixty  days  out  of  four  years 
for  the  action  of  Congress. 

Sir,  it  may  be  true,  as  has  been  said  here,  that  this  legislature 
will  approve  of  these  after-thought  reasons  of  the  President  and 
his  de  Icne  csse  Secretary;  for,  for  aught  I  know,  this  legislature 
may,  as  the  act  of  approval  would  indicate,  repose  more  confidence 
in  one  man,  than  in  some  two  hundred  and  fifty  representatives  of 
the  people.  Such  opinions  are  not  new,  but  they  have  been  always 
less  popular  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  than  on  the  other,  and  are 
less  popular  there  than  heretofore.  I  must  be  excused  from  be- 
coming a  convert  to  this  monarchical  creed,  until  Congress  adopt 
and  approve  these  documents.  When  that  shall  be  done,  I  will 
agree  with  the  majority  of  this  House,  that  legislative  bodies  are 
an  undue  hindrance  upon  executive  action.  On  the  first  attempt 
to  rcassume  their  constitutional  prerogative,  the  President  will 
enter  their  halls,  like  Cromwell,  and  say,  "  I  command  you  to  be- 
gone about  your  business,  for  the  Lord  hath  no  further  need  of 
your  services." 

But,  sir,  there  are  considerations  appertaining  to  this  subject, 
and  arising  from  the  peculiar  opinions  of  those  whom  I  address, 
which  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  here.  The  President  has  pro- 
nounced judgment  against  the  bank,  and  this  legislature  has  con- 
stituted itself  a  court  to  review  that  judgment.  Let  us  then  pro- 
ceed in  the  investigation  of  the  matter,  with  the  aid  of  those  forms 
of  judicial  proceeding  so  conducive  to  the  attainment  of  correct- 
ness, certainty,  and  justice.  Who  is  the  defendant?  The  Bank 
of  the  United  States.  I  will,  sir,  at  the  hazard  of  being  denounced 
as  a  "  feed  advocate "  of  the  bank,  pro  hac  vice,  offer  myself  as 
counsel,  and  notwithstanding  what  I  have  before  said  as  to  the 
impropriety  of  these  resolutions,  because  they  do  not  come  within 
the  scope  of  your  duties,  will  nevertheless  waive  all  plea  to  the 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  31 

jurisdiction  of  the  court.  The  defendant  is  a  bank,  the  offence 
charged  is,  that  this  bank  has  sought  to  obtain  power.  Sir,  on 
such  a  charge  the  President  can  have  no  hope  here.  My  client, 
the  bank,  is  sure  to  escape.  Why,  sir,  it  is  the  adjudicated  law  of 
this  court  that  banks  ought  to  possess  political  power.  Your 
statute  books,  from  year  to  year,  down  to  this  day,  are  full  of  re- 
corded adjudications,  that  banks  are  the  safest  and  most  proper 
depositories  of  political  power.  We  have,  in  this  state,  a  system 
admirably  contrived  and  adapted  to  increase  the  number  and 
combine  the  energies  of  these  purifying  political  agents.  We 
take  care,  wrhen  a  bank  is  to  be  incorporated,  that  the  commis- 
sioners named  to  distribute  the  stock  shall  be  men  who  will  so  dis- 
tribute it  as  to  secure  a  political  organization  of  the  institution. 
Nay,  so  far  from  discouraging  these  agents,  we  demand  no  bonus, 
but  on  the  other  hand  we  give  a  bonus  of  ten  per  cent,  upon  the 
capital  stock  of  every  bank,  as  a  compensation  for  political  ser- 
vices. From  such  a  court  as  this,  then,  I  know  that  my  client,  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  can  have  nothing  to  apprehend.  I 
applaud,  if  your  honors  will  permit,  your  wisdom  in  having  thus 
settled  the  law.  I  know  your  impartiality  and  consistency,  and  I 
crave  your  honors'  pardon  for  having  dwelt  so  long  on  the  other 
charges  against  my  unfortunate  client.  Had  I  but  pressed  this 
point  first,  I  know  you  would  have  acquitted  the  accused  at  once. 

But  to  examine  briefly  these  charges  against  the  bank.  The 
first  is,  that  preparatory  to  its  application  for  a  renewal  of  its 
charter,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  bank  increased  its  loans 
twenty-eight  millions  of  dollars,  to  induce  public  favor.  Unfor- 
tunately it  appears  there  is  a  mistake  of  eleven  millions  in  this 
aggregate.  The  amount  of  increase  was  seventeen  millions  only ; 
and  it  appears  from  the  report  of  the  directors  of  the  bank,  that 
the  reason  for  making  this  increase  of  discounts,  was  an  increase 
of  available  funds,  to  the  amount  of  eleven  millions. 

Another  charge  against  the  bank  is,  the  expenditure  of  moneys 
in  the  publication  of  documents,  speeches,  and  reports,  in  vindi- 
cation of  itself  against  the  relentless  war  waged  upon  it.  Sir,  we 
all  recollect  the  virulence,  the  recklessness  of  the  attack.  We 
know  that  it  was  make  by  the  executive  of  the  United  States, 
aided  by  all  the  power  and  influence  of  the  government.  I  shall 
not  stop  here  to  count  the  number  of  copies  of  Gallatin's  irrefrag- 
able essay  on  banking,  and  of  the  National  Intelligencer,  and  .of 
VOL.  1— 3. 


32  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

Mr.  Webster's  and  Mr.  McDuffie's  speeches,  which  were  published 
and  circulated  by  the  bank.  I  know  well  that  the  number  in  the 
region  of  country  in  which  I  reside,  fell  as  far  short  of  the  cloud 
of  vetoes,  and  Benton's  speeches,  and  extra  Globes,  as  these  latter 
did  of  the  former  in  sound  practical  knowledge,  forcible  argument, 
and  ingenuous  patriotism.  Sir,  it  is  certainly  an  anomaly  in  this 
government,  where  we  boast  the  freedom  and  independence  of  the 
press,  and  "  the  safety  with  which  error  of  opinion  may  be  tolera- 
ted where  reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it,"  that  it  should  be  made 
a  cause  of  complaint  against  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  that 
it  defended  itself  by  means  of  the  press  against  the  attack  made 
with  a  design  to  destroy  it.  But,  sir,  who  is  he  that  thus  inter- 
poses between  the  people  and  the  press  !  I  remember  well,  and 
the  Senate  will  pardon  me  if  I  call  their  recollection  to  a  period 
so  remote,  that  during  the  canvass  which  preceded  the  first  elec 
tion  of  the  present  President,  the  great  complaint  against  his  pre- 
decessor was,  that  he  had  used  the  patronage  of  the  government 
to  operate  upon  the  elections.  I  remember,  too,  that  when  the 
President  took  the  chair,  "  reform  "  in  this  particular  was  one  of 
the  most  prominent  parts  of  that  thorough  reform  which  he  saw 
so  "  conspicuously  inscribed  on  the  list  of  executive  duties."  Can 
it  be  that  it  is  the  same  individual  who  assigns,  as  a  justification 
for  his  violent  usurpation  of  the  power  of  Congress,  that  the  bank 
had  employed  the  press  to  inform  the  people  upon  a  question 
which  he  boasts  was  submitted  to  them  at  his  re-election  ! 

Sir,  I  have  diifered  from  the  majority  of  this  Senate  and  this 
Legislature,  as  to  the  propriety  of  making  banks  the  depositories 
of  political  power,  and  for  that  reason  I  rejoice  that  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States  had  the  moral  firmness  to  resist  the  efforts  made 
to  subject  it  to  political  control.  Further  than  this,  and  further 
than  defending  itself  when  assailed  by  the  administration,  it  has 
never  gone.  Had  it  gone  further,  I  should  have  rejoiced  that  its 
political  influence  had  been  exercised  against  executive  power  and 
influence.  As  counteracting  agents,  they  may,  in  some  degree, 
neutralize  each  other;  but  united,  the  power  and  influence  of 
both  would  be  fearful  indeed.  You  are  now  co-operating  to  pro- 
duce that  union.  You  will  dismiss  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  independent,  and  you  will  expose  the  deposits  at  public 
auction,  to  be  taken  by  those  state  institutions  which  will  bid  most 
of  political  support  to  the  executive.  When  this  shall  have  been 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  33 

accomplished,  there  will  be  real  cause  for  the  alarm  now  affected. 
Sir,  I  believe  that  the  days  of  the  bank  are  numbered.  It  is 
for  the  welfare  of  the  country,  and  not  on  account  of  that  institu- 
tion that  I  regret  it.  That  institution  has  sustained  the  govern- 
ment, and  enabled  it  to  pay  its  immense  debt ;  it  has  given  us  a 
sound  currency  and  brought  foreign  capital  to  be  tributary  to  our 
use  ;  thus  enabling  us  to  increase  our  own,  and  to  develop  our 
resources  a  hundred  fold.  Its  benefits  are  seen  everywhere  over 
this  widely-extended  country.  That  institution  is  now  to  be  made 
a  sacrifice,  I  would  fain  hope  the  last  sacrifice,  to  party  spirit. 
The  experiment  is  to  be  made,  whether  this  sacrifice  is  wise  and 
expedient.  If  I  see  cause  to  despair  in  the  condition  of  depression 
and  distress  to  which  this  nation  is  to  be  reduced,  I  still  can  look 
upon  it  without  an  entire  sinking  of  the  heart,  for  I  here  and  else- 
where have  discharged  the  duty  devolved  upon  me,  as  a  freeman, 
and  the  representative  of  freemen.  There  still  remains  a  painful 
hope,  that  in  the  midst  of  suffering  the  nation  will  rouse  from  its 
delusion.  In  the  depth  of  distress  will  come  the  teachings  of  pru- 
dence, and  the  purification  of  patriotism.  Then  will  come  the 
mighty  energies  which  will  work  out  the  redemption  of  our  coun- 
try ;  for  she  is  yet  too  young,  too  vigorous,  to  sink  into  a  dishon- 
ored grave.  Then  will  come,  too,  the  hour  of  mutual  congratula- 
tions that  all  had  awaked  from  their  error,  before  it  was  too  late, 
and  then  looking  back  with  humility  and  gratitude  upon  the  abyss 
from  which  we  shall  have  escaped,  we  shall  return  again  to  the 
counsels  of  our  fathers,  and  be  content  for  the  future  to  be  guided 
by  their  precepts,  and  to  imitate  their  example. 

[In  reply  to  Mr.  Dodge.] 

My  honorable  friend  from  the  IVth,  [Mr.  DODGE]  has  reviewed 
our  long  and  agreeable  acquaintance  as  members  of  this  body, 
and  frankly  expressed  his  opinion  of  the  manner  in  which  I  have 
.discharged  my  duties  here.  He  has  been  pleased  to  add,  that 
while  he  has  seen  much  in  my  conduct  to  admire  and  respect, 
there  have  been  two  incidents  which,  in  all  the  frankness  of  an 
honest  nature,  he  says  he  has  been  compelled  to  disapprove. 

The  first  of  these  offences  is,  that  two  years  ago,  in  a  debate 
similar  to  this,  I  defended  the  principles  of  anti-masonry  in  this 
house.  Now,  sir,  with  all  my  solicitude  to  secure  the  unreserved 
esteem  of  my  honorable  friend,  the  act  of  which  he  complains  is 
precisely  that  one  for  which,  of  all  others,  I  cannot  admit  his  cen- 


34  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

sure  to  be  just.  Sir,  my  honorable  friend  will  recollect  that  I 
was  then,  as  I  am  now,  an  anti-mason.  I  was  sent  here  by  anti- 
masons.  I  am  not,  as  the  gentleman  well  knows,  the  man  to  pro- 
fess principles  in  one  place  I  am  afraid  or  ashamed  to  avow  in 
another.  I  am  not  the  man,  when  sent  here  because  I  am  known 
to  entertain  political  principles  approved  by  my  constituents,  to 
abandon  those  principles  for  any  which  shall  be  more  popular  in 
this  place.  Under  such  circumstances,  when  "  the  blessed  spirit" 
of  anti-masonry  was  traduced  in  the  Senate,  I  could  not  sit  by  in 
silence.  Nor  should  I  now  ;  and  however  I  should  regret  the  loss 
of  my  friend's  favorable  opinion,  I  should  commit  the  same 
offence,  were  an  attack  upon  those  principles  made  by  my  honor- 
able friend,  or  any  other  member  of  this  house,  whose  assault 
should  be  made  with  sufficient  dignity  and  self-respect  to  justify 
me  in  replying  to  him. 

But  it  was  less  the  act  of  defending  anti-masonry,  than  the  man- 
ner of  the  act,  that  my  honorable  friend  condemned.  He  says,  that 
on  the  occasion  alluded  to,  Ijprqfanely  declared  I  wished  to  leave 
anti-masonry  as  a  legacy  to  my  children.  And  this  profanity 
shocked  the  pure  and  pious  feelings  of  my  honorable  friend.  Sir, 
were  the  report  which  he  gives  of  my  speech  on  that  occasion 
correct,  I  know  not  that  I  should  have  any  desire  to  change  it. 
Secret  societies,  composed  of  members  bound  together  by  unlaw- 
ful oaths,  and  extended  over  the  whole  land,  are  opposed  to  the 
genius  of  our  government,  subversive  of  the  laws,  and  inconsistent 
with  private  rights  and  the  public  welfare.  Having  assumed,  and 
still  intending  to  maintain,  the  responsibility  of  opposing  such 
institutions  during  the  period  of  my  action  as  a  citizen,  both 
morally  and  politically,  as  long  as  moral  or  political  action  shall 
be  necessary  and  shall  promise  to  avail,  I  should  feel  that  I  ought 
to  inculcate  upon  those  the  gentleman  has  referred  to,  among 
other  lessons,  the  same  duty,  if  occasion  shall  remain,  when  they 
come  upon  the  stage  of  public  action.  I  would  not  swear  them, 
as  Hannibal  did  his  son  ;  but  I  would  leave  my  injunction  upon 
them  to  contribute  all  that  might  lie  in  their  power  to  eradicate 
so  great  an  evil  from  the  land.  But  what  on  that  occasion  I  did 
say  was,  in  speaking  of  the  names  enrolled  in  the  cause  of  anti- 
masonry,  that  there  were  among  them  some  which  had  acquired 
a  fame  for  talents,  purity,  and  public  service,  which  any  member 
of  this  Senate  might  be  proud  to  leave  to  his  children  ;  for  myself, 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  35 

I  wished  to  leave  to  mine  fto  better  legacy.  And  is  it  not  so  ? 
Are  there  not  such  names  ? 

Sir,  with  this  explanation,  which  would  have  been  unnecessary 
had  the  gentleman  consulted  his  own  memory  rather  than  a  cer- 
tain organ  of  doubtful  veracity,  which  has  furnished  too  many 
of  the  facts  relied  upon  in  his  speech,  my  honorable  friend  will,  I 
trust,  no  longer  have  occasion  to  complain  of  my  profanity.  But 
the  gentleman  inquires  whether  I  am  not  satisfied  that  this  legacy 
has  lapsed.  I  can  console  myself  that  if  it  be  so,  it  has  probably 
gone  into  the  same  oblivion  with  his  ancient  federalism  and  free- 
masonry. 

But  my  honorable  friend  is  distressed  by  an  apprehension  that 
I  have  acquired  the  principles  expressed  by  me  in  this  debate  not 
among  "  the  green  mountains  and  valleys  of  my  native  county," 
nor  yet  among  the  beautiful  plains  and  lakes  of  my  adopted  resi- 
dence, but  among  certain  "  aristocratical  associations  in  Europe"* 
Sir,  I  confess  that  my  principles  relating  to  this  subject,  how- 
ever derived,  are  diametrically  opposed  to  those  proclaimed  here 
by  the  gentleman  from  the  lYth.  It  is  my  principle  that  it  is 
the  business  of  the  legislature  to  confine  themselves  within  the 
sphere  of  duties  prescribed  by  the  Constitution.  It  is  his  that  the 
legislature  may  safely  transcend  that  sphere  to  assume  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  Congress.  It  is  my  principle  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  resist  usurpation  of  legislative  powers 
by  the  executive.  It  is  Ms  that  it  is  safer  to  trust  to  executive 
discretion  than  to  legislative  wisdom.  It  is  mine  that  the  govern- 
ing and  sole  motive  in  all  legislation  ought  to  be  the  security  of 
the  government  and  the  good  of  the  people.  It  is  his  that  the 
powers  of  government  ought  to  be  so  wielded  as  to  subserve  the 
ambition  of  him  who  happens  to  be  the  favorite  of  the  predomi- 
nant party  of  the  day.  Sir,  these  principles  were  not  acquired, 
although  they  may  have  been  confirmed  by  my  observations  or 
associations  in  foreign  countries.  If  my  honorable  friend  had 
taken  occasion  to  inform  himself  of  my  progress  from  more 
authentic  sources  than  the  questionable  organ  before  alluded  to, 
he  would  have  found  that,  during  a  recent  and  rapid  journey 
abroad,  undertaken  from  motives  which  need  not  here  be  men- 
tioned however  much  they  may  have  been  misunderstood,  I  kept 

*  Mr.  S.  had  recently  returned  from  a  visit  to  Europe.    See  Letters  from  Europe, 
Vol.  III.— ED. 


36  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 


as  far  aloof  from  courts  and  the  grwt  who  dispense  favor  abroad, 
as  I  do  from  the  administration  and  those  who  dispense  power 
and  political  preferment  at  home.  /  kissed  no  queen's  hand  / 
bowed  to  no  court  favorites  there,  more  than  I  have  fashioned  my 
principles  to  the  standard  established  here.  If  I  have  learned 
anything  by  foreign  travel,  it  has  been  from  the  universal  subjec- 
tion, suffering  and  despair,  which  I  witnessed  in  Ireland,  to  sym- 
pathize with  the  agitators  of  that  country,  and  know  the  fate 
which  awaits  a  people  who  surrender  their  legislature,  the  only 
safeguard  against  executive  oppression:  from  the  general  acquies- 
cence in  the  exclusive  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  great, 
which  I  witnessed  in  England,  to  learn  the  importance  of  resist- 
ing every  measure  calculated  to  increase  the  overwhelming  power 
and  influence  of  those  who  are  charged  with  the  duties  of  gov- 
ernment :  from  the  Prussian  and  Austrian  armies  which  I  met  in 
what  were  called  the  free  cities  and  states  of  Germany,  the  folly 
and  madness  of  those  nations  which,  under  the  pretext  of  public 
convenience  and  public  interest,  place  in  the  same  hand  the  purse 
and  the  sword :  from  the  boldness,  intelligence,  and  patriotism 
of  the  republicans  of  Switzerland,  the  value  of  that  democracy 
which  spends  itself,  not  in  lauding  the  servants  of  the  people,  but 
in  watching  their  conduct  with  a  jealous  and  wakeful  eye.  And 
from  my  intercourse  with  him  who  dwells  in  the  shades  of  La 
Grange,  the  value  of  a  consistent  and  enduring  devotion  to  the 
principles  of  republicanism,  not  only  when  the  people  hail  the 
champion  of  those  principles  as  their  deliverer,  but  even  when 
they  desert  him  in  his  solitude  to  gaze  upon  and  be  satisfied  with 
the  insignia  of  their  deliverance,  while  the  popular  constitution 
is  undermined,  and  the  popular  executive  usurps  the  same  des- 
potic power  over  the  press  which  had  sent  his  ministers  to  prison, 
and  his  predecessor  into  banishment.  Sir,  although  then,  I 
have  been  exposed  to  the  seductive  influences  of  foreign  manners 
and  opinions,  while  my  honorable  friend  was  more  safely  relaxing 
himself  amid  the  democratic  associations  of  Montgomery  county, 
he  may  rest  assured  that  I  have  returned  to  love  my  country  better, 
and  to  understand  better  the  value  of  her  institutions  ;  and  as  far 
as  the  responsibility  rests  on  me,  to  take  care  that  the  welfare  of 
my  countrymen  be  not  sacrificed  in  the  conflict  of  contending 
parties,  and  that  the  Constitution  be  transmitted  unimpaired  to 
posterity.  But  enough,  sir,  upon  a  topic  which  nothing  but  allusions, 
ungenerous  and  unfounded,  could  justify  me  in  introducing  here. 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK.          37 


THE    SIX    MILLION    LOAN.* 

APRIL    10,    1834. 

ME.  PRESIDENT  :  What  our  eyes  have  seen,  our  ears  have  heard, 
and  our  hearts  have  felt  without  these  walls,  is  now  brought  home 
to  us  in  this  place.  The  title  of  this  bill  proclaims  that  an  alarming 
crisis  has  occurred  in  our  commercial  condition,  and  that  a  mighty 
effort  is  necessary  to  rescue  the  people  of  this  state  from  imminent 
unbearable  suffering.  I  would,  above  every  other  offence,  avoid 
that  of  bringing  to  this  debate  a  contentious,  an  interested,  or  self- 
confident  spirit,  and  would,  on  the  other  hand,  invoke  the  spirit 
of  mutual  conciliation,  that  we  may  reason  together  upon  the 
causes,  nature,  and  extent  of  the  calamities  experienced  and  ap- 
prehended, and  search  out  and  apply  a  proper  and  adequate 
remedy. 

The  proposition  to  which  I  shall  first  call  the  attention  of  the 
Senate,  is,  that  the  message  of  the  governor,  and  the  report  of  the 
committee,  are  erroneous  and  unsatisfactory  in  regard  to  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  evils  existing  in  the  country.  Those  documents 
assert  the  existence  of  u  a  state  of  commercial  embarrassment"  "  a 
pressure"  " a  shock  to  business"  But  neither  of  them  assumes 
that  the  evils  now  existing  are  so  great  as  to  require  immediate 
relief.  The  bill  which  they  recommend  is  intended  to  provide  for 
more  serious  evils  expected  to  occur  during  the  recess  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  to  be  produced  by  some  hostile  action  of  the  United 
States  Bank.  "While  I  see  no  cause  to  apprehend  any  danger  from 
the  future  action  of  that  institution,  I  maintain  that  the  pressure 
under  which  the  people  of  this  state  are  now  suffering,  is  one  al- 
together unnecessary,  and  demands  immediate  relief. 

Sir,  there  may  have  been  prudence  hitherto  in  keeping  silence 

*  Speech  in  the  Senate  of  New  York,  on  the  bill  to  loan  six  millions  of  dollars  on  the 
credit  of  the  state. 


38  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

concerning  the  pressure.  But  that  time  has  gone  by.  The  legis- 
lature which  would  shut  out  the  evidences  of  suffering  it  proposes 
to  relieve,  would  be  as  unpardonable  as  the  physician  who  would 
prescribe  a  remedy  for  a  fever,  without  consulting  the  symptoms 
which  indicated  the  character  and  malignity  of  the  disease.  It  is 
now  the  part  of  neither  wise  nor  honest  men  to  deny  the  pressure 
in  its  full  aggravation. 

About  three  months  have  elapsed  since  it  was  first  experienced 
in  Kew  York.  The  first  indication  was  one  of  a  character  that 
seldom  misleads— stocks  of  all  kinds  fell  5,  10,  15,  20,  25,  30,  and 
in  some  instances  almost  50  per  cent.  Foreign  and  domestic 
commerce  have  been,  and  still  continue,  greatly  obstructed — bills 
on  foreign  countries  return  dishonored — stocks  depreciated,  no 
longer  serve  as  remittances — accustomed  accommodations  are 

m 

withheld — receivables  are  protested — merchandise  has  fallen  in 
value — jobbers,  retailers,  purchasers  of  cotton,  wool,  tobacco, 
wheat,  and  other  produce,  have  in  a  great  degree  suspended  their 
purchases.  More  than  a  hundred  merchants,  several  bankers, 
many  manufacturers,  have  yielded,  and  those  who  have  not  done 
BO,  cautiously  avoid  making  new  engagements.  The  conse- 
quences have  been,  a  depreciation  of  property  of  every  kind,  and 
the  interruption  of  business  everywhere.  Although  the  pressure 
fell  first  upon  the  merchants,  it  has  since  visited  every  class  of 
citizens — the  mechanics,  the  manufacturers,  the  seamen,  the  car- 
men, the  laborers  at  the  wharves  and  in  the  streets.  Operatives 
are  dismissed  from  employment,  and  consequently  labor  be- 
comes redundant,  and  wages  decrease.  Sir,  we  have  seen  in  that 
city  a  new  spectacle,  one  which  neither  you  nor  I  have  ever  seen 
before,  and  which  I  trust  in  God  we  may  never  see  again.  We 
have  seen  all  these  classes  of  citizens  assembling  in  tumultuous 
meetings,  complaining  of  the  derangement  of  business,  and  send- 
ing committees  to  Congress  and  the  President,  to  implore  relief. 
But  it  is  said  these  meetings  have  been  partisan  and  factious.  I 
ask,  are  those  the  classes  of  men  ordinarily  liable  to  factious  excite- 
ment ?  "When  was  it  before,  that  in  the  midst  of  profitable  em- 
ployment, they  simultaneously  left  their  labors  to  congregate  in 
the  Park,  the  Exchange,  and  the  streets,  and  to  set  up  a  factious 
clamor  of  pressure  and  distress,  which  was  sure  to  produce  the 
evils  of  which  they  falsely  complained  ?  Sir,  I  have  seen  in  cer- 
tain newspapers,  charges  that  individuals  have  dismissed  laborers 


THE  SIX  MILLION  LOAN.  39 

for  opinion's  sake.  Without  inquiring  which  political  party  has 
exceeded  the  other  in  this  mode  of  political  action,  or  with  what 
grace  the  charge  comes  from  those  who  proscribe  from  all  public 
office  for  independence  of  opinion,  I  will,  for  this  question  only, 
admit  the  charge  to  be  true,  and  then  I  ask,  when  before  did  it 
happen  in  this  country,  that  the  employer  could  dictate  conditions 
to  the  laborer,  and  above  all,  conditions  of  political  action  ? 

Like  those  living  remote,  who  hear  of  the  plague  which  deso- 
lates the  city,  but  think  that  it  cannot  reach  them,  because  they 
cannot  see  it  on  its  march,  we,  for  a  time,  thought  this  pressure 
could  not  extend  into  the  country.  But  there  are  now  seen  and 
heard  the  indications  that  it  has  already  become  universal.  The 
financial  departments  of  the  general  government,  and  that  of  this 
state,  are  equally  affected.  The  general  government,  instead  of  a 
revenue  of  twenty  millions,  is  now  reckoning  on  one  of  not  more 
than  half  that  sum.  In  this  state  we  have  of  funds  belonging  to 
the  treasury,  more  than  two  and  a  half  millions,  accumulated  for  the 
purpose  of  paying  the  debts  of  the  state,  and  lying  in  deposit  in 
banks.  Our  stocks  were  never  so  cheap.  By  buying  them,  we 
not  only  could  avoid  all  possible  risk  of  loss  or  waste  of  these 
moneys,  and  stop  the  increase  of  interest,  but  we  should  also  make 
a  saving  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Why  do  we 
not  buy  them  ?  The  banks  require  the  money,  and  we  leave  it  there 
to  sustain  them.  Instead  of  calling  on  them  to  pay  the  two  and  a 
half  millions  they  now  owe  us,  we  are  about  to  borrow,  at  a  loss  to 
the  state,  six  millions  more,  four  of  which  are  to  be  loaned  to  the 
same  institutions.  We  are  loaning  four  millions  to  banks  which 
already  owe  the  state  an  amount  greater  than  that  of  all  the  specie 
in  their  vaults.  The  stock  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Canal 
Company,  which  owes  us  $750,000,  is  reduced  to  17  per  cent,  below 
par.  The  season  for  the  opening  of  the  canal  is  at  hand  ;  no  one 
reckons  on  a  revenue  from  it  to  exceed  two-thirds  of  that  of  the  last 
year.  The  construction  of  the  Chenango  Canal  will  require,  during 
the  present  and  the  next  year,  the  expenditure  of  the  million  of  dol- 
lars appropriated.  But  the  canal  board  have  forced  the  entire  stock 
into  the  market,  at  a  great  and  inevitable  loss,  to  obtain  $900,000  to 
deposit  and  sustain  the  banks,  instead  of  issuing  portions  of  it  from 
time  to  time,  as  the  gradual  progress  of  expenditure  may  require. 

The  entire  system  of  improvements  by  incorporated  companies 
has  been  affected.  The  Mohawk  and  Hudson  Railroad  Company 


40         SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

have  recently  contracted  a  loan,  at  the  unusual  rate  of  six  per 
cent,  interest,  with  the  privilege  to  the  lender,  to  convert  the  loan 
into  stock,  at  par,  within  two  years.  The  stock  of  the  Saratoga 
Railroad  Company  has  fallen  15  per  cent.  That  of  the  Utica  and 
Schenectady  has  fallen  in  proportion,  and  were  any  considerable 
instalment  to  be  called  for,  it  would  sink  below  par.  A  competi- 
tion existed  for  railroad  charters,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
session,  o^o  one  now  believes  that  the  stock  of  a  single  company 
will  be  subscribed. 

Individual  property  and  enterprise  have  been  no  less  affected. 
Banks  having  ceased  to  discount,  their  profits  are  now  reduced, 
and  their  stock  depreciated.  Manufactories  are  everywhere  strug- 
gling to  sustain  themselves,  by  contracting  their  operations.  Most 
of  the  great  western  mills  have  been  stopped.  From  all  that  I 
have  learned,  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  depreciation  of 
real  estate,  throughout  the  state,  is  33  per  cent.  Produce  stands 
at  the  same  nominal  price,  in  Orange  county  and  on  the  Genesee 
river.  And  yet,  the  pressure  is  only  at  its  first  stage  in  the  coun- 
try. As  surely  as  there  is  a  scarcity  of  money,  so  surely  property  and 
the  value  of  labor  must  depreciate,  and  business  must  be  arrested. 
The  paper  of  the  country  merchants  is  falling  due,  and  is,  as  I  am 
informed,  accumulating  in  unusual  masses,  under  protest,  in  the 
country  banks.  Much  of  the  merchandise  purchased  last  fall,  is 
unsold.  For  what  has  been  sold,  the  merchants  do  not  yet  expect 
payment.  They  rely,  as  they  always  have  relied,  upon  the  banks 
for  accommodations — and  those  accommodations  are  denied.  Sir, 
I  am  told  that,  if  the  banks  continue  closed,  the  merchants  in  the 
country  will  be  unable  to  pay  more  than  one-third  of  the  paper 
falling  due  this  spring.  The  consequence  must  be,  that  business 
will  be  still  more  generally  obstructed,  and  a  fearful  addition  will  be 
made  to  the  list  of  bankruptcies.  Let  no  man  say  that  the  sufferers 
are  merchants  and  speculators,  incurring  only  the  common  hazards 
of  their  profession.  If  the  suffering  were  confined  to  them,  I 
would  nevertheless  repudiate  the  maxim,  that  they  are  not  entitled 
to  relief.  Sir,  our  farmers  and  our  mechanics  employ  borrowed 
capital,  they  contract  debts— and  there  are  few  of  either  class 
who  can  sustain  themselves  during  a  season  of  depreciation  of 
farms,  produce,  and  labor.  As  surely  as  commerce  sustains  and 
invigorates  every  department  of  business,  so  certainly  will  its  stag- 
nation produce  that  general  depreciation.  Those  who  grow  rich 


THE  SIX  MILLION  LOAN.  41 

on  the  spoils  of  the  merchants,  will  swell  their  gains  from  the 
distress  of  the  farmers. 

I  shall  be  told  that  the  pressure  is  relaxing.  The  indications  to 
that  effect  are  a  proof,  indeed,  that  business  is  adjusting  itself  to 
the  pressure.  Those  who  have  already  failed,  need  no  more  money. 
Those  who  can  avoid  failing,  want  much  less  for  new  engagements. 
But,  if  it  be  only  thus  that  the  pressure  is  to  be  relieved,  and  even 
supposing  that  no  new  obstacle  interpose,  then  the  return  of  pros- 
perity will  be  so  slow,  that  the  country  must  yet  undergo  more 
severe  suffering  than  it  has  yet  experienced. 

Sir,  the  picture  I  have  drawn  is  in  gloomy  contrast  with  that 
presented  by  his  Excellency,  and  the  joint  committee.  If  it  be 
thought  too  deeply  colored,  I  may  be  suffered  to  say  that  they  and 
I  have  both  spoken  before. 

The  governor,  in  his  annual  message,  and  the  committee,  in 
their  action  on  the  resolutions  concurring  in  the  removal  of  the 
deposits,  plainly  declared  that  they  had  no  apprehensions  of 
the  pressure  they  now  admit.  I  then  predicted  what  is  now 
realized.  It  is  not  for  me  to  assign  the  reasons  why  his  Excellency 
considers  the  present  pecuniary  embarrassments  of  the  country  so 
trivial.  There  is  a  trite  opinion  that  rulers  seldom  sympathize 
with  the  people.  Certain  it  is  that,  in  the  present  instance,  the 
executive  chamber,  in  this  capitol,  is  as  inaccessible  to  the  voice 
of  complaint  as  the  executive  palace  at  Washington.  But  I  con- 
fess I  am  surprised  that  this  pressure  is  so  lightly  regarded  by  the 
joint  committee,  when  I  recollect  that  among  its  members  are  two 
distinguished  gentlemen  representing  the  city  of  New  York,  whose 
interests  have  been  so  vitally  affected.  The  fact  may  serve  to 
show  how  much  a  temporary  removal  from  our  constituents  tends 
to  weaken  the  influence  of  our  relations  toward  them. 

Sir,  if  the  view  I  have  taken  of  the  pressure  existing  is  at  all 
correct,  it  follows  that  if  relief  is  to  be  afforded,  that  relief  ought 
to  be  certain  and  immediate,  not  remote  and  contingent,  as  is 
that  proposed  by  the  bill  under  consideration. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  question — What  was  the  cause  of  the 
destruction  of  confidence  ?  During  th%  year  1833,  the  country 
was  in  a  most  palmy  state  of  prosperity.  The  tendency  of  such  a 
state  of  commercial  business  as  then  existed,  is  to  a  condition  of 
more  active  and  extended  enterprise.  We  have  experience  now 
to  prove  that  there  was  no  obstacle,  like  that  of  over-trading,  to 


42  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

prevent  the  continuance  of  commercial  enterprise.  The  rate  of 
exchange  was  never  so  decidedly  in  our  favor.  As  the  country 
was  never  so  little  indebted  abroad,  so  had  there  never  been  a 
greater  abundance  of  capital  at  home.  To  carry  on  the  system  of 
commerce,  those  engaged  in  it  required  the  same  amount  of 
capital  they  had  before  enjoyed.  It  is  admitted  also,  that  there 
was  required  the  additional  amount  of  about  twelve  millions  neces- 
sary by  reason  of  the  modification  of  the  tariff  laws.  It  is  admit- 
ted by  the  governor  and  the  committee,  that  if  this  capital  could 
have  been  procured  by  the  merchants,  there  would  have  been  no 
obstacle  to  the  successful  prosecution  of  commerce.  The  capital 
was  to  be  obtained  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  and  the 
state  banks.  It  will  not  be  denied  that,  as  late  as  September,  the 
banks  were  perfectly  able  to  make  the  accommodation.  The 
country  never  was  more  able  to  give  the  necessary  security.  The 
additional  twelve  millions  were  required  as  a  mere  temporary  ac- 
commodation, as  the  duties  for  the  payment  of  which  it  was  needed 
would,  in  due  course  of  business,  have  been  refunded  to  the  mer- 
chants by  the  consumers.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that,  had 
the  banks  made  the  discounts,  no  pressure  would  have  been  ex- 
perienced. But  the  banks  did  not  make  the  discounts.  Hence 
came  the  scarcity  of  money,  the  consequent  failure  to  perform 
engagements,  and  the  depreciation  of  property.  Mutual  distrust 
was  a  necessary  consequence — this  distrust  extended,  and  at  length 
affected  the  currency.  The  effect  was  inevitable — the  currency 
was  forced  into  the  banks ;  these  institutions  feared  to  re-issue  it ; 
money  became  more  scarce ;  distress,  of  course,  increased.  The 
currency  has  been  continually  flowing  in  upon  the  banks,  and  the 
same  operations  continuing  in  the  same  circle,  have  continually 
increased  the  pressure.  This  I  suppose  to  be  the  manner  in  Avhich 
confidence  has  been  destroyed.  It  is  evident  that  the  question  of 
the  cause  of  the  pressure  is  now  reduced  to  this — What  was  the 
cause  of  the  banks  refusing  the  required  accommodations  ? 

The  governor  and  committee  say  that  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  unnecessarily  contracted  its  discounts  and  produced  the 
alarm  or  panic  which  compelled  the  state  banks  to  reduce  their 
accommodations.  In  showing  this  allegation  to  be  erroneous,  I 
trust  I  shall  be  able  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  question 
I  have  stated. 

Until  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  avowed  hostility  of  the 


THE  SIX  MILLION  LOAN.  43 

President,  and  his  partisans,  to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  had 
been  confined  to  measures  tending  to  direct  public  opinion  against 
a  renewal  of  the  charter,  but  in  no  wise  affecting  the  credit  and 
pecuniary  interests  of  the  institution.  A  new  and  bolder  assault 
was  then  made,  which  nevertheless  was  legal  and  proper  in  form 
and  manner.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  announced  to  Con- 
gress suspicions  of  the  solvency  of  the  institution  and  consequently 
of  the  safety  of  the  public  moneys  of  which  it  was  the  depository. 
Almost  simultaneously,  an  agent  was  appointed  by  the  Secretary, 
and  a  committee  of  investigation  by  the  House  of  Representatives, 
who  were  respectively  charged  with  the  duty  of  examining  the 
condition  of  the  bank.  The  result  of  both  those  investigations 
established  the  facts  that  the  bank  was  solvent,  and  the  public 
moneys  entirely  safe.  The  House  of  Representatives  passed  a 
resolution  to  that  effect,  and  this  was  regarded  by  the  directors  of 
the  bank,  and  the  community,  as  conclusive  that  the  public  de- 
posits would  not  be  removed.  The  bank,  as  far  as  its  credit  was 
concerned,  had  passed  unharmed  through  the  investigation.  But 
no  sooner  had  Congress  adjourned,  than  the  President  prepared 
for  a  new  assault,  one  not  like  the  other,  within  the  forms  of  law 
and  the  ordinary  mode  of  procedure,  but  one  which  was  intention- 
ally to  be  violent  and  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  stockholders. 
To  prepare  the  minds  of  his  partisans  for  this  measure,  certain 
presses,  known  to  enjoy  his  confidence,  gave  out  that,  although  the 
deposits  were  safe,  yet  they  nevertheless  ought  to  be  and  would 
be  removed,  and  that  whatever  doubts  might  exist,  the  President 
would  in  due  time  give  satisfactory  reasons  for  a  course  so  unex- 
pected. Mr.  M'Lane,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  known  to 
be  opposed  to  the  removal,  was  transferred  to  the  State  Depart- 
ment, and  Mr.  Duane,  who  was  appointed  in  his  place,  was,  with 
probable  reason,  supposed  to  concur  with  the  President.  To  these 
significant  indications  the  directors  of  the  bank  could  not  be  inat- 
tentive. In  the  month  of  June,  a  secret  negotiation  was  carried 
on  by  the  President  with  local  banks,  to  transfer  the  public  moneys 
to  them.  Thus  it  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  directors  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  that  the  institution  was  to  be  deprived 
of  the  moneys,  the  custody  of  which  was  guaranteed  to  it  by  law  ; 
but  when  ?  for  what  cause  ?  in  what  manner  ?  and  whether  all  at 
once,  or  from  time  to  time  ?  were  studiously  concealed.  This  con- 
duct of  the  administration  indicated  that  the  measure  was  to  be  so 


44         SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

conducted  that  the  blow  should  be  as  injurious  as  it  was  intended 
to  be  vindictive.  Such  was  the  attitude  assumed  in  the  summer  of 
1833  by  the  administration  toward  the  bank,  on  which  commerce 
relied  not  only  for  accustomed,  but  for  increased  accommodation. 
The  bank  then  had  a  right  to  apprehend  from  the  executive  the 
withdrawal  of  the  government  deposits,  and  the  deprivation  in 
future  of  the  accruing  public  moneys.  "When  the  directors  re- 
garded the  violence  of  the  attack  meditated  by  the  President, 
when  they  considered  that  it  was  to  be  inflicted  by  the  hand  of 
one  who  wielded  the  executive  power  of  the  government,  and 
whose  influence  controlled  a  majority  in  both  houses  of  Congress, 
and  who  was  supported  by  a  press  and  a  party  possessing  pre- 
dominant influence  in  the  Union,  which  had  never  failed  to  sup- 
port every  measure  he  had  adopted  ;  and  when  they  considered 
that  the  avowed  object  of  the  measure  was  to  enfeeble  the  institu- 
tion, they  were  well  justified  in  apprehending  that  a  shock  would 
be  given  to  its  credit,  and  that  a  demand  of  specie  would  ensue. 
Entertaining  these  apprehensions,  what  were  the  directors  of  the 
United  States  Bank  to  do  ?  Obviously  their  duty  to  the  institu- 
tion, to  the  depositors,  to  the  government,  and  to  the  country,  was 
to  prepare  for  the  blow  which  was  anticipated.  But  how  must 
they  prepare  ?  Precisely  as  safety  fund  banks  and  all  other 
banks  do — by  accumulating  specie  and  reducing  discounts.  Such, 
sir,  was  the  attitude  into  which  the  Executive  brought  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  state  banks.     Those  institutions  were 
indebted  to  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  in  a  sum  greater  than 

'  O 

the  aggregate  of  specie  in  their  vaults.  They  anticipated  that 
they  would  be  required  to  pay  that  debt,  so  as  to  enable  that  in- 
stitution to  comply  with  the  demands  of  the  government.  They, 
too,  were  to  change  their  relations  toward  that  institution. 
Charged  henceforward  with  the  regulation  of  the  currency,  it  was 
necessary  for  them  to  look  elsewhere  than  to  the  favor  of  the 
United  States  Bank  for  the  specie  required  to  maintain  their  cir- 
culation. They,  too,  apprehended  a  shock  to  confidence,  and  thus 
they  were  compelled  to  prepare  for  the  emergency,  by  the  reduc- 
tion of  their  debts  and  circulation.  Thus,  at  the  same  time,  when 
commerce  required  extraordinary  accommodations,  not  only  the 
United  States  Bank,  the  local  banks,  but  new  ones  also,  were 
compelled  by  the  executive  to  retrench.  The  decision  of  the 


THE  SIX  MILLION  LOAN.  45 

President,  that  the  deposits  should  be  removed,  was  announced  on 
the  21st  of  September.  The  shock  apprehended  was  immediately 
experienced,  as  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  deposits  of  indi- 
viduals in  the  United  States  Bank  were  immediately  reduced. 
Thus,  from  the  first  of  October  to  the  first  of  November,  the  pub- 
lic deposits  were  reduced  1,636,124  dollars,  and  the  private  de- 
posits were  within  the  same  time  reduced  1,723,821  dollars,  mak- 
ing the  whole  reduction  of  deposits  3,359,945  dollars.  It  will 
astonish  those  who  have  read  the  governor's  message  and  the  re- 
port of  the  committee,  to  learn  that,  notwithstanding  this  immense 
reduction  of  deposits  in  consequence  of  the  acts  of  the  executive, 
the  United  States  Bank  actually  reduced  its  discounts  during  the 
same  period,  only  2,883,594  dollars. 

During  all  this  period  of  pressure,  the  United  States  Bank  has 
left  in  the  state  banks  an  average  amount  uncalled  for,  of  3,464,956 
dollars.  Sir,  I  put  to  all  candid  men  in  the  Senate  the  question, 
whether  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  has  oppressed  the  country 
or  the  state  banks  ?  No  man  but  a  reckless  partisan  will  answer 
this  question  in  the  affirmative.  Sir,  the  judgment  of  bankers 
and  merchants  (and  they  are  most  competent  to  decide  upon  the 
matter,  and  have  the  deepest  interest  in  it)  approves  and  acquits 
the  United  States  Bank.  But  while  that  institution  has  been  able 
to  sustain  itself  with  so  very  slight  a  reduction  of  discounts,  the  pres- 
sure lias,  in  a  much  greater  ratio,  diminished  the  ability  of  the 
state  banks  to  keep  up  their  discounts  and  circulation.  How  much 
they  have  reduced  either,  is  not  ascertained ;  but  the  fact  is  known 
that,  in  this  state  alone,  they  have  withdrawn  from  circulation, 
three  millions  of  dollars.  Sir,  it  is  with  pain  and  regret  that  I 
remark  that  the  message  of  the  governor  withholds  all  details  and 
explanation  on  this  interesting  subject,  and  yet  charges  upon  the 
United  States  Bank  a  wanton  and  unnecessary  reduction  of  its 
discounts  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  the  people. 

Sir,  were  it  true  that  this  pressure  has  been  produced  by  those 
whom  his  excellency  stoops  to  stigmatize,  what  then  ?  Is  gross 
usurpation  to  be  tolerated,  because  to  resist  and  expose  it  may 
produce  a  panic  ?  Never,  sir,  will  I  submit  to  such  a  policy  while 
I  have  any  responsibility  as  a  citizen. 

But,  sir,  neither  those  who  produced,  nor  those  who  prolonged 
this  panic,  were  the  opponents  of  the  administration.  The  Presi- 
dent arid  his  partisans — they  are  responsible  for  it  all.  To  them  I 


46          SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

have  traced  its  origin.  They  have  had  the  power  to  arrest  it. 
They  have  sullenly  refused.  When  the  voice  of  complaint  reached 
them,  they  declared  it  false  and  factious.  When  the  reality  of 
the  pressure  could  no  longer  be  denied,  they  answered  that  it 
could  affect  none  but  those  who  employed  borrowed  capital,  and 
they  were  entitled  to  neither  relief  nor  sympathy.  When  this  un- 
feeling response  would  no  longer  avail,  the  country  was  assured 
that  the  President  was  trying  an  experiment,  to  see  if  state  banks 
could  not  be  substituted  as  the  fiscal  agents  of  the  government. 
The  sincerity  of  this  answer  was  questioned,  and  then  came  the 
bolder  avowal  that  the  President  was  making  an  experiment, 
whether  local  banks,  as  well  as  the  general  institution,  could  not 
be  dispensed  with  altogether,  and  the  people  be  brought  back  to 
a  specie  currency — a  retrograde  movement  more  injurious  than  an 
Agrarian  law.  Thus,  as  the  excitement  has  increased,  the  usurpa- 
tion of  the  President  has  grown  bolder.  The  conduct  of  the  execu- 
tive, the  rude  denial  of  all  relief,  the  promulgation  of  these  crude 
theories  and  bold  and  unconstitutional  purposes — these  have  nour- 
ished the  vulture  distrust,  which  has  fastened  upon  the  currency. 

Sir,  there  was  never  a  charge  so  reckless  as  that  made  by  the 
governor,  that  there  has  been  manifested  by  the  United  States 
Bank  an  especial  hostility  to  this  state  and  its  institutions.  Dur- 
ing all  this  pressure,  that  institution  has  kept  up  its  discounts  both 
at  New  York  and  Buffalo,  to  their  accustomed  amounts.  And 
there  has  been  constantly  due  a  large  balance  from  the  New  York 
banks.  If  there  is  any  one  fact  clearly  established,  it  is  that  the 
institution  has  curtailed  its  operations  elsewhere  to  sustain  the 
commerce  of  the  city  of  Xew  York,  where  its  discounts  were  in- 
creased, from  the  1st  of  October  to  the  1st  of  February,  from 
6,180,833  dollars  to  6,458,540  dollars ;  while  the  public  deposits 
in  the  institution  were  reduced  from  4,130,322  dollars  to  258,350 
dollars.  Sir,  he  must  calculate  largely  upon  popular  credulity, 
who,  with  these  facts  before  him,  will  put  forth  such  an  allegation. 

There  is  one  other  allegation  in  the  message  and  in  the  report 
of  the  committee  so  disingenuous  that  I  cannot  pass  it  by  without 
animadversion.  These  documents  assert  that  the  removal  of  the 
deposits  did  not  diminish  the  ability  of  the  bank  to  continue  and 
increase  its  discounts,  and  yet  the  President  and  Secretary,  never- 
theless assign  as  the  reason  for  the  removal,  that  it  was  necessary 
"in  order  to  compel  the  bank  to  reduce  its  discounts  and  prepare 


THE  SIX  MILLION  LOAN.  47 

for  its  dissolution.  The  governor  and  this  very  legislature,  scarcely 
three  months  ago,  approved  the  removal  for  that  very  reason. 
Sir,  how  enviable  is  that  abundant  measure  of  glory  which  covers 
such  inconsistencies  as  this  ! 

If  I  have  been  at  all  successful,  I  have  shown  that  all  the  evils 
hitherto  experienced  and  yet  to  be  apprehended  from  the  pressure, 
are  the  necessary  consequences  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits. 
The  governor  and  committee  have  revived  the  question,  whether 
that  removal  was  necessary  ?  Having  once  discussed  that  question 
in  this  place,  I  shall  be  very  brief  upon  it  now.  But  how  are 
circumstances  changed  since  that  discussion !  Then  we  were 
assured  there  was  not,  nor  could  there  be,  any  pressure ;  now  a 
pressure  exists  so  alarming  that  the  state  is  seen  borrowing  six 
millions  for  the  relief  of  its  citizens  ! 

The  reasons  given  were  vindictive.  It  was  necessary  to  punish 
the  bank  and  to  diminish  its  power.  To  which  it  ought  to  be  a 
sufficient  answer,  1st.  That  in  inflicting  this  punishment,  the 
President  assumed  legislative  power,  defining  the  offence  and  the 
penalty,  judicial  power  convicting  the  bank,  and  executive  power, 
conferred  by  no  law,  enforcing  the  punishment. 

But  if  this  be  not  a  sufficient  reply  to  those  who  think  such 
powers  may  be  safely  assumed  by  the  executive,  then  I  would  say 
to  them  they  can  now  see  how  blind  revenge  is  !  The  penalty  has 
been  inflicted,  the  blow  has  fallen,  the  offender  is  unharmed,  is 
still  as  strong,  as  powerful  as  before.  Where,  then,  has  the  blow 
fallen  ?  Look  upon  this  suffering  country,  and  see  in  her  the  vic- 
tim !  But  there  was  the  pretext  of  the  public  good,  the  public 
morals  were  to  be  saved  by  preventing  the  renewal  of  the  charter 
of  the  bank.  Sir,  in  my  experience,  I  have  never  seen  any  thing 
so  preposterous  as  this  affected  alarm  at  the  power  of  the  bank. 
Of  all  the  institutions  of  the  country,  it  is  the  most  powerless,  the 
most  defenceless.  Popular  feeling  is  most  easily  directed  against 
it.  Honor,  firmness,  candor,  moral  courage,  are  necessary  to 
maintain  its  cause  even  against  false  accusations ;  but  it  is  the 
braggart's  bravery  to  crowd  into  the  foremost  rank  of  its  assail- 
ants. It  is  supererogatory  to  add  that  legislative  action  is  necessary 
to  confer  on  the  executive  the  power  to  preserve  the  public 
morals. 

Sir,  if  I  have  established  the  several  preliminary  points  I  have 
stated,  it  will  follow  that  the  measure  to  be  adopted  in  order  to 
VOL.  1—4. 


48  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

afford  relief  to  the  community,  must  be  one  which  will  revive 
confidence,  now  prostrate,  throughout  the  Union.  Although  this 
pressure  originated  in  a  temporary  deficiency  of  money  for  the 
purposes  of  business,  the  evil  has  become  that  of  the  general  de- 
struction of  mutual  confidence  between  individuals,  and,  to  a  great 
and  alarming  extent,  the  destruction  of  confidence  in  the  currency. 
The  system  of  commercial  business,  and  the  operations  of  the  cur- 
rency, extend  throughout  the  country.  The  relief  proposed  by 
this  bill  is  merely  local — it  is  temporary  and  cannot  be  adequate. 

But  it  is  on  the  ground  of  the  corrupting  operation  of  this  mea- 
sure that  I  most  strenuously  protest  against  it.  In  addition  to  a 
debt  of  two  and  a  half  millions  owed  to  the  Treasury  by  the  state 
banks,  you  would  loan  them  four  millions,  you  would  make  it 
their  interest  to  become  subservient  and  to  do  the  will  of  those 
who  wield  the  power  of  the  state — you  would  thus  establish  directly 
and  inevitably  a  great  moneyed  power  to  be  wielded  by  the  public 
officers ;  in  other  words,  by  the  dominant  party  through  the  agency 
of  moneyed  corporations  operating  directly  upon  the  people.  The 
consequence  of  this  will  be  the  corruption  of  the  government,  the 
banks,  and  the  people.  Xor  is  the  two  million  loan  in  the  country 
less  objectionable  in  this  respect.  You  are  in  a  season  of  extreme 
pressure  and  distress,  holding  out  to  the  people  the  enormous  sum 
of  two  millions.  You  appeal  to  the  cupidity  of  some,  and  operate 
upon  the  necessities  of  others  in  every  county  in  the  state.  You 
would  bring  all  the  needy  to  exercise  their  influence  on  the  super- 
visors to  draw  their  portion  of  the  loan.  The  board  of  supervisors 
would  yield,  the  money  would  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  loan 
officers.  In  my  place  as  a  Senator,  I  declare  that  to  be  opposed 
to  the  administration  is  a  disqualification  for  the  office  of  loan 
officers.  Those  loan  officers  would  distribute  the  sum  which,  al- 
though inadequate  to  the  general  relief,  would  still  be  a  sufficient 
bribe  to  the  weak,  the  unfortunate,  the  timid  and  the  unprin- 
cipled. It  is  easy  to  imagine  who  then  would  be  the  recipients 
of  this  bounty  of  the  state.  And  all  would  know  or  feel  that  to 
participate  in  it,  they  must  give  their  political  support  to  those 
who  should  dispense  it. 

Thus,  sir,  in  this  free  republic,  is  the  money  of  the  people  pro- 
posed to  be  employed  by  the  government  to  corrupt  the  people 
themselves.  The  two  millions  would  become  a  great  corruption 
fund  more  dangerous  than  the  gold  of  Sir  Henry  Clinton  paid  to 


THE  SIX  MILLION  LOAN.  49 

the  traitor  Arnold,  more  destructive  of  the  virtue  of  the  people 
than  were  the  bribes  paid  by  Philip  of  Macedon  to  the  Athenian 
orators. 

Sir,  I  blush  that  it  has  been  reserved  for  the  Legislature  of  New 
York  to  establish  such  a  system  as  this — although,  if  it  must  be 
adopted,  I  cannot  regret  that  the  honor  of  its  paternity  belongs  to 
one  whose  fame  as  a  Representative  of  this  state  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  rests  upon  his  declaration  of  the  principle 
that,  in  reference  to  political  discussions,  "  to  the  victor  belongs 
the  spoils  of  the  enemy." 

Mr.  President,  I  have  shown  that  relief  ought  to  be  given  to  the 
people  of  this  state,  under  an  unnecessary  and  cruel  pressure.  I 
have  shown,  I  am  sure  I  have  shown  that  this  bill  would  not  afford 
that  relief,  and  ought  not  to  pass.  "What,  then,  is  there  no  relief? 
Is  there  no  way  to  arrest  the  march  of  this  DISTRUST  which  is 
spreading  ruin  throughout  the  land  ? 

Yes,  there  is  a  remedy — one  in  the  power  of  this  legislature  to 
grant ;  one  that  will  be  neither  contingent,  nor  remote,  nor  inade- 
quate, but  immediate,  certain  and  effectual ;  one  that  will  revive 
languishing  commerce,  agriculture  and  manufactures — nay,  more 
— one  whose  operation  will  not  be  limited  by  the  borders  of  our 
state  :  it  will  recall  confidence  and  prosperity  everywhere  through- 
out this  land.  To  give  that  relief  will  require  no  money,  no  loan, 
no  expense,  no  risk — it  will  compromit  no  principle,  it  will  work 
no  injury,  nor  be  fraught  with  any  danger  to  the  people.  One 
sacrifice  it  requires,  but  that  is  a  personal  one  to  be  made  by  the 
members  of  the  legislature.  That  sacrifice  is  difficult,  but  it  can 
work  them  no  injury.  They  who  make  it  will  be  approved  and 
applauded  and  hailed  by  the  generous  people  who  have  confided 
in  and  honored  us  as  their  deliverers  from  suffering  which  they  as 
well  as  we  had  not  foreseen.  That  sacrifice,  however,  is  one  sel- 
dom made.  None  but  great  minds  can  make  it.  It  is  therefore 
more  precious  in  the  eyes  of  good  men.  To  make  that  sacrifice  is 
the  only  human  virtue  which  can  gain  the  favor  of  Him  who  is 
altogether  pure  and  altogether  just.  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  pride, 
of  opinion — the  acknowledgment  of  error.  Let  this  legislature 
say  to  those  who  will  obey  their  will  at  "Washington,  because  they 
depend  upon  their  support — "  Restore  the  public  treasures  to  their 
lawful  depository  ;  cease  this  unnatural  and  unnecessary  war- 
fare against  the  interests  of  the  people,  and  these  ruinous  experi- 


50  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

ments."  Say  to  the  executive — "  Surrender  to  Congress  and  the 
judiciary  their  constitutional  powers,  and  leave  to  Congress  and  to 
the  people  the  questions  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  a  bank, 
or  no  bank  of  the  United  States."  Sir,  this  legislature,  when  it 
should  so  speak,  would  be  obeyed.  I  could  almost  envy  them  the 
errors  which  have  given  them  so  great  a  power  to  bless  their 
country.  Sir,  I  would  not,  for  all  my  country's  wealth,  (and  who 
does  not  desire  to  participate  in  it  ?)  for  all  my  country's  honors, 
(and  who  does  not  prize  the  favor  of  his  fellow  citizens  ?)  bear  the 
responsibility  assumed  by  those  who  have  brought  this  ruin  upon 
the  country.  More  than  that  man  who  might  obtain  all  that 
wealth  and  all  those  honors,  would  I  envy  those  who  should  make 
the  sacrifice  I  have  demanded. 

Sir,  if  that  sacrifice  be  not  made,  it  is  not  here  that  this  question 
will  be  decided — it  must  go  to  the  polls,  where  the  votes  of  those 
who  here  make  laws,  will  be  of  no  more  weight  than  those  of  the 
poorest  sufferers  in  the  land.  Those  reckon  too  much  on  the 
ignorance  of  the  people,  who  think  they  cannot  understand  the 
cause  of  these  calamities ;  those  reckon  too  much  on  their  corrup- 
tibility, who  think  they  will  not  reject  with  scorn  this  mockery  of 
relief.  But,  be  it  so,  if  there  the  issue  must  go.  Heaven  will  not 
only  have  withdrawn  its  favor  from  this  people,  but  reversed  its 
principles  of  justice,  if  the  victory  be  not  to  the  oppressed. 

NOTE. — During  the  four  years  that  Mr.  Seward  was  a  member  of  the  state  senate,  he 
delivered  speeches  against  Executive  interference  with  the  United  States  Bank ;  in 
favor  of  abolishing  Imprisonment  for  Debt ;  against  increasing  the  salaries  of  the  Chan- 
cellor and  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  in  favor  of  a  separate  Prison  for  Females ; 
against  an  increase  of  Corporations  and  Monopolies ;  in  favor  of  preparing  and  publishing 
the  Colonial  History  of  the  State ;  and  on  several  other  topics  of  public  interest.  But  we 
have  to  regret  that  none  but  very  imperfect  reports  of  most  these  speeches  were  made 
at  the  time,  or  have  been  preserved.  From  the  allusions  to  them  which  we  find  in  a  file 
of  newspapers  of  that  day,  we  learn  that  they  were  marked  with  great  ability,  and  that 
they  produced  decided  effect  at  the  time,  and  were  instrumental  in  producing  that  politi- 
cal revolution  which  soon  after  brought  the  party  to  which  Mr.  Seward  belonged  into 
power,  with  him  at  its  head.— ED. 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


SPEECHES 

m 

THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


FKEEDOM  IN  THE  NEW  TEKEITOEIES. 

MARCH    11,    1850. 

FOUR  years  ago,  California,  a  Mexican  province,  scarcely  in- 
habited and  quite  unexplored,  was  unknown  even  to  our  usually 
immoderate  desires,  except  by  a  harbor,  capacious  and  tranquil, 
which  only  statesmen  then  foresaw  would  be  useful  in  the  oriental 
commerce  of  a  far  distant,  if  not  merely  chimerical,  future. 

A  year  ago,  California  was  a  mere  military  dependency  of  our 
own,  and  we  were  celebrating  with  unanimity  and  enthusiasm  its 
acquisition,  with  its  newly-discovered  but  yet  untold  and  untouched 
mineral  wealth,  as  the  most  auspicious  of  many  and  unparalleled 
achievements. 

To-day,  California  is  a  state,  more  populous  than  the  least  and 
richer  than  several  of  the  greatest  of  our  thirty  states.  This  same 
California,  thus  rich  and  populous,  is  here  asking  admission  into 
the  Union,  and  finds  us  debating  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  itself. 

Is  o  wonder  if  we  are  perplexed  with  ever-changing  embarrass- 
ments !  No  wonder  if  we  are  appalled  by  ever-increasing  respon- 
sibilities !  No  wonder  if  we  are  bewildered  by  the  ever-augment- 
ing magnitude  and  rapidity  of  national  vicissitudes ! 

SHALL  CALIFORNIA  BE  RECEIVED  ?  For  myself,  upon  my  individual 
judgment  and  conscience,  I  answer,  Yes.  For  myself,  as  an  in- 
structed representative  of  one  of  the  states,  of  that  one  even  of 
the  states  which  is  soonest  and  longest  to  be  pressed  in  commercial 


52  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  political  rivalry  by  the  new  commonweath,  I  answer,  Yes. 
Let  California  come  in.  Every  new  state,  whether  she  come  from 
the  east  or  from  the  west,  every  new  state,  coming  from  whatever 
part  of  the  continent  she  may,  is  always  welcome.  But  California, 
that  comes  from  the  clime  where  the  west  dies  away  into  the  rising 
east ;  California,  that  bounds  at  once  the  empire  and  the  continent ; 
California,  the  youthful  queen  of  the  Pacific,  in  her  robes  of  free- 
dom, gorgeously  inlaid  with  gold — is  doubly  welcome. 

And  now  I  inquire,  first,  Why  should  California  ~be  rejected  ?  All 
the  objections  are  founded  only  in  the  circumstances  of  her 
coming,  and  in  the  organic  law  which  she  presents  for  our  confir- 
mation. 

1st.  Calif ornia  comes  UNCEREMONIOUSLY,  without  a  preliminary 
consent  of  Congress,  and  therefore  by  usurpation.  This  allegation, 
I  think,  is  not  quite  true ;  at  least,  not  quite  true  in  spirit.  Cali- 
fornia is  here  not  of  her  own  pure  volition.  "We  tore  California 
and  New  Mexico  violently  from  their  places  in  the  confederation 
of  Mexican  states,  and  stipulated,  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hi- 
dalgo, that  the  territories  thus  acquired  should  be  admitted  as  states 
into  the  American  Union  as  speedily  as  possible. 

But  the  letter  of  the  objection  still  holds.  California  does  come 
without  having  obtained  a  preliminary  consent  of  Congress  to 
form  a  constitution.  But  Michigan  and  other  states  presented 
themselves  in  the  same  unauthorized  way,  and  Congress  waived 
the  irregularity ',  and  sanctioned  the  usurpation.  California  pleads 
these  precedents.  Is  not  the  plea  sufficient  ? 

But  it  has  been  said  by  the  honorable  senator  from  South  Caro- 
lina, [Mr.  CALHOTJN,]  that  the  ordinance  of  1787  secured  to  Michigan 
the  right  to  become  a  state,  when  she  should  have  sixty  thousand 
inhabitants,  and  that,  owing  to  some  neglect,  Congress  delayed 
taking  the  census.  This  is  said  in  palliation  of  the  irregularity  of 
Michigan.  But  California,  as  has  been  seen,  had  a  treaty,  and 
Congress,  instead  of  giving  previous  consent,  and  instead  of  giving 
her  the  customary  territorial  government,  as  they  did  to  Michigan, 
failed  to  do  either,  and  thus  practically  refused  both,  and  so  aban- 
doned the  new  community,  under  most  unpropitious  circumstances, 
to  anarchy.  California  then  made  a  constitution  for  herself,  but 
not  unnecessarily  and  presumptuously,  as  Michigan  did.  She 
made  a  constitution  for  herself,  and  she  comes  here  under  the  law, 
the  paramount  law,  of  self-preservation. 


CALIFORNIA.  53 

In  that  she  stands  justified.  Indeed,  California  is  more  than 
justified.  She  was  a  colony,  a  milita?*y  colony.  All  colonies, 
especially  military  colonies,  are  incongruous  with  our  political 
system,  and  they  are  equally  open  to  corruption  and  exposed  to 
oppression.  They  are,  therefore,  not  more  unfortunate  in  their 
own  proper  condition  than  fruitful  of  dangers  to  the  parent  de- 
mocracy. California,  then,  acted  wisely  and  well  in  establishing 
self-government.  She  deserves  not  rebuke,  but  praise  and  appro- 
bation. ISTor  does  the  objection  come  with  a  good  grace  from 
those  who  offer  it.  If  California  were  now  content  to  receive  only 
a  territorial  charter,  we  could  not  agree  to  grant  it  without  an 
inhibition  of  slavery,  which,  in  that  case,  being  a  federal  act, 
would  render  the  attitude  of  California,  as  a  territory,  even  more 
offensive  to  those  who  now  repel  her  than  she  is  as  a  state,  with 
the  same  inhibition  in  the  constitution  of  her  own  voluntary 
choice. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  California  has  assigned  her  own 
boundaries  without  the  previous  authority  of  Congress.  But  she 
was  left  to  organize  herself  without  any  boundaries  fixed  by  pre- 
vious law  or  by  prescription.  She  was  obliged,  therefore,  to 
assume  boundaries,  since  without  boundaries  she  must  have  re- 
mained unorganized. 

A  third  objection  is,  that  California  is  too  large. 

I  answer,  first,  there  is  no  common  standard  of  states.  Califor- 
nia, although  greater  than  many,  is  less  than  one  of  the  states. 

Secondly.  California,  if  too  large,  may  be  divided  with  her  own 
consent,  and  a  similar  provision  is  all  the  security  we  have  for 
reducing  the  magnitude  and  averting  the  preponderance  of  Texas. 

Thirdly.  The  boundaries  of  California  seem  not  at  all  unnatural. 
The  territory  circumscribed  is  altogether  contiguous  and  compact. 

Fourthly.  The  boundaries  are  convenient.  They  embrace  only 
inhabited  portions  of  the  country,  commercially  connected  with 
the  port  of  San  Francisco.  £To  one  has  pretended  to  offer  boun- 
daries more  in  harmony  with  the  physical  outlines  of  the  region 
concerned,  or  more  convenient  for  civil  administration. 

But  to  draw  closer  to  the  question,  "What  shall  be  the  bounda- 
ries of  a  new  state  ?  concerns — 

First.  The  state  herself ;  and  California,  of  course,  is  content. 

Secondly.  Adjacent  communities;  Oregon  does  not  complain 


54  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  encroachment,  and  there  is  no  other  adjacent  community  to 
complain. 

Thirdly.  The  other  states  of  the  Union ;  the  larger  the  Pacific 
states,  the  smaller  will  be  their  relative  power  in  the  Senate.  All 
the  states  now  here  are  either  Atlantic  states  or  inland  states,  and 
surely  they  may  well  indulge  California  in  the  largest  liberty  of 
boundaries. 

The  fourth  objection  to  the  admission  of  California  is,  that  no 
census  had  been  taken,  and  no  laws  prescribing  the  qualifications 
of  suffrage  and  the  apportionment  of  representatives  in  conven- 
tion, existed  before  her  convention  was  held. 

I  answer,  California  was  left  to  act  ab  initio.  She  must  begin 
somewhere,  without  a  census,  and  without  such  laws.  The  pilgrim 
fathers  began  in  the  same  way  on  board  the  Mayflower ;  and,  since 
it  has  been  objected  that  some  of  the  electors  in  California  may 
have  been  aliens,  I  add,  that  all  of  the  pilgrim  fathers  were  aliens 
and  strangers  to  the  commonwealth  of  Plymouth. 

Again,  the  objection  may  well  be  waived,  if  the  constitution  of 
California  is  satisfactory,  first  to  herself,  secondly  to  the  United 
States. 

Not  a  murmur  of  discontent  has  followed  California  to  this 
place. 

As  to  ourselves,  we  confine  our  inquiries  about  the  constitution 
of  a  new  state  to  four  things — 

1st.  The  boundaries  assumed ;  and  I  have  considered  that  point 
in  this  case  already. 

2d.  That  the  domain  within  the  state  is  secured  to  us ;  and  it  is 
admitted  that  this  has  been  properly  done. 

3d.  That  the  constitution  shall  be  republican,  and  not  aristocratic 
and  monarchical.  In  this  case,  the  only  objection  is,  that  the 
constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  inhibits  slavery,  is  altogether  too  re- 
publican. 

4th.  That  the  representation  claimed  shall  be  just  and  equal. 
No  one  denies  that  the  population  of  California  is  sufficient  to  de- 
mand two  representatives  on  the  federal  basis ;  and,  secondly,  a 
new  census  is  at  hand,  and  the  error,  if  there  is  one,  will  be  immedi- 
ately corrected. 

The  fifth  objection  is,  that  California  comes  under  executive 
influence. 

1st.  In  her  coming  as  a  free  state. 


CALIFORNIA.  55 

2d.  In  her  coming  at  all. 

The  first  charge  rests  on  suspicion  only,  and  is  peremptorily 
denied,  and  the  denial  is  not  controverted  by  proofs.  I  dismiss  it 
altogether. 

The  second  is  true,  to  the  extent  that  the  President  advised  the 
people  of  California,  that,  having  been  left  without  any  civil 
government,  under  the  military  supervision  of  the  Executive, 
without  any  authority  of  law  whatever,  their  adoption  of  a  Con- 
stitution, subject  to  the  approval  of  Congress,  would  be  regarded 
favorably  by  the  President.  Only  a  year  ago,  it  was  complained 
that  the  exercise  of  the  military  power  to  maintain  law  and  order 
in  California,  was  a  fearful  innovation.  But  now  the  wTind  has 
changed,  and  blows  even  stronger  from  the  opposite  quarter. 

May  this  Republic  never  have  a  President  commit  a  more 
serious  or  more  dangerous  usurpation  of  power  than  the  act  of 
the  present  eminent  chief  magistrate,  in  endeavoring  to  induce 
legislative  authority  to  relieve  him  from  the  exercise  of  military 
power,  by  establishing  civil  institutions  regulated  by  law  in  distant 
provinces  !  Rome  would  have  been  standing  this  day,  if  she  had 
had  only  such  generals  and  such  consuls. 

But  the  objection,  whether  true  in  part,  or  even  in  the  whole, 
is  immaterial.  The  question  is,  not  what  moved  California  to 
impress  any  particular  feature  on  her  constitution,  nor  even  what 
induced  her  to  adopt  a  constitution  at  all ;  but  it  is  whether,  since 
she  has  adopted  a  constitution,  she  shall  be  admitted  into  the 
Union. 

I  have  now  reviewed  all  the  objections  raised  against  the  ad- 
mission of  California.  It  is  seen  that  they  have  no  foundation  in 
the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  Nor  are  they  founded  in  the 
Constitution,  for  the  Constitution  prescribes  no  form  or  manner  of 
proceeding  in  the  admission  of  new  states,  but  leaves  the  whole  to 
the  discretion  of  Congress.  "  Congress  may  admit  new  states." 
The  objections  are  all  merely  formal  and  technical.  They  rest  on 
precedents  which  have  not  always,  nor  even  generally,  been 
observed.  But  it  is  said  that  we  ought  now  to  establish  a  safe 
precedent  for  the  future. 

I  answer,  1st :  It  is  too  late  to  seize  this  occasion  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  irregularities  complained  of  being  unavoidable,  the 
caution  should  have  been  exercised  when,  1st,  Texas  was  annexed  ; 


50  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

2d,  when  we  waged  war  against  Mexico ;  or,  3d,  when  we  ratified 
die  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo. 

I  answer,  2d  :  We  may  establish  precedents  at  pleasure.  Our 
successors  will  exercise  their  pleasure  about  following  them,  just 
as  we  have  done  in  such  cases. 

I  answer,  3d :  States,  nations,  and  empires,  are  apt  to  be  pecu- 
liarly capricious,  not  only  as  to  the  time,  but  even  as  to  the  manner, 
of  their  being  born,  and  as  to  their  subsequent  political  changes. 
They  are  not  accustomed  to  conform  to  precedents.  California 
sprang  from  the  head  of  the  nation,  not  only  complete  in  propor- 
tions and  full  armed,  but  ripe  for  affiliation  with  its  members. 

I  proceed  now  to  state  my  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  CALI- 
FORNIA OUGHT  TO  BE  ADMITTED.  The  population  of  the  United 
States  consists  of  natives  of  Caucasian  origin,  and  exotics  of  the 
same  derivation.  The  native  mass  rapidly  assimilates  to  itself 
and  absorbs  the  exotic,  and  thus  these  constitute  one  homogeneous 
people.  The  African  race,  bond  and  free,  and  the  aborigines, 
savage  and  civilized,  being  incapable  of  such  assimilation  and 
absorption,  remain  distinct ;  and,  owing  to  their  peculiar  con- 
dition, they  constitute  inferior  masses,  and  may  be  regarded  as 
accidental  if  not  disturbing  political  forces.  The  ruling  homoge- 
neous family  planted  at  first  on  the  Atlantic  shore,  and  following 
an  obvious  law,  is  seen  continually  and  rapidly  spreading  itself 
westward  year  by  year,  subduing  the  wilderness  and  the  prairie, 
and  thus  extending  this  great  political  community,  which,  as  fast 
as  it  advances,  breaks  into  distinct  states  for  municipal  purposes 
only,  while  the  whole  constitutes  one  entire  contiguous  and  com- 
pact nation. 

"Well  established  calculations  in  political  arithmetic,  enable  us 
to  say  that  the  aggregate  population  of  the  nation 
™>w  is       -  .  22,000,000 

That  10  years  hence  it  will  be  -  -     30,000,000 

That  20  years  hence  it  will  be  -  -         -     38,000,000 

That  30  years  hence  it  will  be  -  ...     50,000,000 

That  40  years  hence  it  will  be  -  -     61,000,000 

That  50  years  hence  it  will  be  -  -  80,000,000 

That  100  years  hence,  that  is,  in  the  year  1950,  it 

will  be  -  .  200,000,000 

equal  nearly  to  one-fourth  of  the  present  aggregate  population  of 
the  globe,  and  double  the  population  of  Europe  at  the  time  of 


CALIFORNIA.  57 

the  discovery  of  America.  But  the  advance  of  population  on 
the  Pacific  will  far  exceed  what  has  heretofore  occurred  on  the 
Atlantic  coast,  while  emigration  even  here  is  outstripping  the 
calculations  on  which  the  estimates  are  based.  There  are  silver 
and  gold  in  the  mountains  and  ravines  of  California.  The  granite 
of  New  England  and  New  York  is  barren. 

Allowing  due  consideration  to  the  increasing  density  of  our 
population,  we  are  safe  in  assuming,  that  long  before  this  mass 
shall  have  attained  the  maximum  of  numbers  indicated,  the  entire 
width  of  our  possessions  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  ocean 
will  be  covered  by  it,  and  be  brought  into  social  maturity  and 
complete  political  organization. 

The  question  now  arises,  Shall  this  one  great  people,  having  a 
common  origin,  a  common  language,  a  common  religion,  common 
sentiments,  interests,  sympathies,  and  hopes,  remain  one  political' 
state,  one  nation,  one  republic,  or  shall  it  be  broken  into  two  con- 
flicting and  probably  hostile  nations  or  republics  ?  There  cannot 
ultimately  be  more  than  two ;  for  the  habit  of  association  is 
already  formed,  as  the  interests  of  mutual  intercourse  are  being 
formed.  It  is  already  ascertained  where  the  centre  of  political 
power  must  rest.  It  must  rest  in  the  agricultural  interests  and 
masses,  who  will  occupy  the  interior  of  the  continent.  These 
masses,  if  they  cannot  all  command  access  to  both  oceans,  will 
not  be  obstructed  in  their  approaches  to  that  one,  which  shall 
offer  the  greatest  facilities  to  their  commerce. 

Shall  the  American  people,  then,  be  divided  ?  Before  deciding 
on  this  question,  let  us  consider  our  position,  our  power,  and  capa- 
bilities. 

.''The  world  contains  no  seat  of  empire  so  magnificent  as  this ; 
which,  while  it  embraces  all  the  varying  climates  of  the  tem- 
perate zone,  and  is  traversed  by  wide  expanding  lakes  and  long- 
branching  rivers,  offers  supplies  on  the  Atlantic  shores  to  the 
over-crowded  nations  of  Europe,  while  on  the  Pacific  coast  it 
intercepts  the  commerce  of  the  Indies.  The  nation  thus  situated, 
and  enjoying  forest,  mineral,  and  agricultural  resources  unequaled, 
if  endowed  also  with  moral  energies  adequate  to  the  achievement 
of  great  enterprises,  and  favored  with  a  government  adapted  to 
their  character  and  condition,  must  command  the  empire  of  the 
seas,  which  alone  is  real  empire. 

We  think  that  we  may  claim  to  have  inherited  physical  and 


58  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

intellectual  vigor,  courage,  invention,  and  enterprise ;  and  the 
systems  of  education  prevailing  among  us  open  to  all  the  stores 
of  human  science  and  art. 

The  old  world  and  the  past  were  allotted  by  Providence  to  the 
pupilage  of  mankind,  under  the  hard  discipline  of  arbitrary  power, 
quelling  the  violence  of  human  passions.  The  new  world  and  the 
future  seem  to  have  been  appointed  for  the  maturity  of  mankind, 
with  the  development  of  self-government  operating  in  obedience 
to  reason  and  judgment. 

We  have  thoroughly  tried  our  novel  system  of  Democratic 
Federal  Government,  with  its  complex,  yet  harmonious  and 
effective  combination  of  distinct  local  elective  agencies,  for  the 
conduct  of  domestic  affairs,  and  its  common  central  elective  agen- 
cies, for  the  regulation  of  internal  interests  and  of  intercourse 
with  foreign  nations ;  and  we  know  that  it  is  a  system  equally 
cohesive  in  its  parts,  and  capable  of  all  desirable  expansion ;  and 
that  it  is  a  system,  moreover,  perfectly  adapted  to  secure  domestic 
tranquillity,  while  it  brings  into  activity  all  the  elements  of  na- 
tional aggrandizement.  The  Atlantic  states,  through  their  com- 
mercial, social,  and  political  affinities  and  sympathies,  are  steadily 
renovating  the  governments  and  the  social  constitutions  of  Europe 
and  of  Africa.  The  Pacific  states  must  necessarily  perform  the 
same  sublime  and  beneficent  functions  in  Asia.  If,  then,  the 
American  people  shall  remain  an  undivided  nation,  the  ripening 
civilization  of  the  West,  after  a  separation  growing  wider  and 
wider  for  four  thousand  years,  will,  in  its  circuit  of  the  world, 
meet  again  and  mingle  with  the  declining  civilization  of  the  East 
on  our  own  free  soil,  and  a  new  and  more  perfect  civilization  will 
arise  to  bless  the  earth,  under  the  sway  of  our  own  cherished  and 
beneficent  democratic  institutions. 

We  may  then  reasonably  hope  for  greatness,  felicity,  and 
renown,  excelling  any  hitherto  attained  by  any  nation,  if,  standing 
firmly  on  the  continent,  we  loose  not  our  grasp  on  the  shore  of 
either  ocean.  Whether  a  destiny  so  magnificent  would  be  only 
partially  defeated,  or  whether  it  would  be  altogether  lost,  by  a 
relaxation  of  that  grasp,  surpasses  our  wisdom  to  determine,  and 
happily  it  is  not  important  to  be  determined.  It  is  enough,  if  we 
agree  that  expectations  so  grand,  yet  so  reasonable  and  so  just, 
ought  not  to  be  in  any  degree  disappointed.  And  now  it  seems 


CALIFORNIA.  59 

to  me  tliat  the  perpetual  unity  of  the  empire  hangs  on  the  decision 
of  this  day  and  of  this  hour. 

California  is  already  a  state — &  complete  and  fully  appointed 
state.  She  never  again  can  be  less  than  that.  She  can  never 
again  be  a  province  or  a  colony ;  nor  can  she  be  made  to  shrink 
and  shrivel  into  the  proportions  of  a  federal  dependent  territory. 
California,  then,  henceforth  and  forever,  must  be,  what  she  is 
now,  a  state. 

The  question  whether  she  shall  be  one  of  the  United  States  of 
America  has  depended  on  her  and  on  us.  Her  election  has  been 
made.  Our  consent  alone  remains  suspended ;  and  that  consent 
must  be  pronounced  now  or  never.  I  say  now  or  never.  Nothing 
prevents  it  now,  but  want  of  agreement  among  ourselves.  Our 
harmony  cannot  increase  while  this  question  remains  open.  We 
shall  never  agree  to  admit  California,  unless  we  agree  now.  Nor 
will  California  abide  delay.  I  do  not  say  that  she  contemplates 
independence  ;  but,  if  she  does  not,  it  is  because  she  does  not 
anticipate  rejection.  Do  you  say  that  she  can  have  no  motive? 
Consider,  then,  her  attitude,  if  rejected.  She  needs  a  constitu- 
tion, a  legislature,  and  magistrates ;  she  needs  titles  to  that  golden 
domain  of  yours  within  her  borders ;  good  titles,  too ;  and  you 
must  give  them  on  your  own  terms,  or  she  must  take  them  with- 
out your  leave.  She  needs  a  mint,  a  custom-house,  wharves, 
hospitals,  and  institutions  of  learning ;  she  needs  fortifications, 
and  roads,  and  railroads ;  she  needs  the  protection  of  an  army 
and  a  navy ;  either  your  stars  and  stripes  must  wave  over  her 
ports  and  her  fleets,  or  she  must  raise  aloft  a  standard  for  herself ; 
she  needs,  at  least,  to  know  whether  you  are  friends  or  enemies ; 
and,  finally,  she  needs,  what  no  American  community  can  live 
without,  sovereignty  and  independence — either  a  just  and  equal 
share  of  yours,  or  sovereignty  and  independence  of  her  own. 

Will  you  say  that  California  could  not  aggrandize  herself  by 
separation  ?  Would  it,  then,  be  a  mean  ambition  to  set  up  within 
fifty  years,  on  the  Pacific  coast,  monuments  like  those  which  we 
think  two  hundred  years  have  been  well  spent  in  establishing  on 
the  Atlantic  coast  ? 

Will  you  say  that  California  has  no  ability  to  become  inde- 
pendent? She  has  the  same  moral  ability  for  enterprise  that 
inheres  in  us,  and  that  ability  implies  command  of  all  physical 
means.  She  has  advantages  of  position.  She  is  practically  fur- 


60  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ther  removed  from  us  than  England.  We  cannot  reach  her  by 
railroad,  nor  by  unbroken  steam  navigation.  We  can  send  no 
armies  over  the  prairie,  the  mountain,  and  the  desert,  nor  across  the 
remote  and  narrow  Isthmus  within  a  foreign  jurisdiction,  nor 
around  the  Cape  of  Storms.  We  may  send  a  navy  there,  but 
she  has  only  to  open  her  mines,  and  she  can  seduce  our  navies 
and  appropriate  our  floating  bulwarks  to  her  own  defence.  Let 
her  only  seize  our  domain  within  her  borders,  and  our  commerce 
in  her  ports,  and  she  will  have  at  once  revenues  and  credit  ade- 
quate to  all  her  necessities.  Besides,  are  we  so  moderate,  and  has 
the  world  become  so  just,  that  we  have  no  rivals  and  no  enemies 
to  lend  their  sympathies  and  aid  to  compass  the  dismemberment 
of  our  empire  ? 

Try  not  the  temper  and  fidelity  of  California  —  at  least  not 
now — not  yet.  Cherish  her  and  indulge  her  until  you  have 
extended  your  settlements  to  her  borders,  and.  bound  her  fast 
by  railroads,  and  canals,  and  telegraphs,  to  your  interests — until 
her  affinities  of  intercourse  are  established,  and  her  habits  of 
loyalty  are  fixed — and  then  she  can  never  be  disengaged. 

California  would  not  go  alone.  Oregon,  so  intimately  allied  to 
her,  and  as  yet  so  loosely  attached  to  us,  would  go  also  ;  and  then 
at  least  the  entire  Pacific  coast,  with  the  western  declivity  of  the 
Sierra  Nevada,  would  be  lost.  It  would  not  depend  at  all  upon 
us,  nor  even  on  the  mere  forbearance  of  California,  how  far  east- 
ward the  long  line  across  the  temperate  zone  should  be  drawn, 
which  should  separate  the  Republic  of  the  Pacific  from  the 
Republic  of  the  Atlantic.  Terminus  has  passed  away,  with  all 
the  deities  of  the  ancient  Pantheon,  but  his  sceptre  remains. 
Commerce  is  the  god  of  boundaries,  and  no  man  now  living  can 
foretell  his  ultimate  decree. 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  admission  of  California  shall  be 
attended  by  a  COMPROMISE  of  questions  which  have  arisen  out 

Of   SLAVERY  ! 

I   AM    OPPOSED    TO    ANY    SUCH    COMPROMISE,    IN    ANY   AND   ALL    THE 

FORMS  IN  WHICH  rr  HAS  BEEN  PROPOSED  ;  because,  while  admitting 
the  purity  and  the  patriotism  of  all  from  whom  it  is  my  mis- 
fortune to  differ,  I  think  all  legislative  compromises,  which  are 
not  absolutely  necessary,  radically  wrong  and  essentially  vicious. 
They  involve  the  surrender  of  the  exercise  of  judgment  and  con- 
science on  distinct  and  separate  questions,  at  distinct  and  separate 


COMPROMISES.  61 

times,  with  the  indispensable  advantages  it  affords  for  ascertaining 
truth.  They  involve  a  relinquishment  of  the  right  to  reconsider 
in  future  the  decisions  of  the  present,  on  questions  prematurely 
anticipated.  And  they  are  acts  of  usurpation  as  to  future  ques- 
tions of  the  province  of  future  legislators. 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  as  if  slavery  had  laid  its  paralyzing  hand 
upon  myself,  and  the  blood  were  coursing  less  freely  than  its 
wont  through  my  veins,  when  I  endeavor  to  suppose  that  such 
a  compromise  has  been  effected,  and  that  my  utterance  forever 
is  arrested  upon  all  the  great  questions — social,  moral,  and  politi- 
cal— arising  out  of  a  subject  so  important,  and  as  yet  so  incom- 
prehensible. 

What  am  I  to  receive  in  this  compromise  ?  Freedom  in  Cali- 
fornia. It  is  well ;  it  is  a  noble  acquisition ;  it  is  worth  a  sacrifice. 
But  what  am  I  to  give  as  an  equivalent  ?  A  recognition  of  the 
claim  to  perpetuate  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  forbear- 
ance toward  more  stringent  laws  concerning  the  arrest  of  persons 
suspected  of  being  slaves  found  in  the  free  states ;  forbearance 
from  the  proviso  of  freedom  in  the  charters  of  new  territories. 
None  of  the  plans  of  compromise  offered  demand  less  than  two, 
and  most  of  them  insist  on  all  of  these  conditions.  The  equivalent, 
then,  is,  some  portion  of  liberty,  some  portion  of  human  rights  in 
one  region  for  liberty  in  another  region.  But  California  brings 
gold  and  commerce  as  well  as  freedom.  I  am,  then,  to  surrender 
some  portion  of  human  freedom  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
in  East  California  and  New  Mexico,  for  the  mixed  consideration 
of  liberty,  gold,  and  power,  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

This  view  of  legislative  compromises  is  not  new.  It  has  widely 
prevailed,  and  many  of  the  state  constitutions  interdict  the  intro- 
duction of  more  than  one  subject  into  one  bill  submitted  for  legis- 
lative action. 

It  was  of  such  compromises  that  Burke  said,  in  one  of  the  loftiest 
bursts  of  even  his  majestic  parliamentary  eloquence  : 

"  Far,  far  from  the  commons  of  Great  Britain  be  all  manner  of  real  vice ;  but  ten 
thousand  times  farther  from  them,  as  far  as  from  pole  to  pole,  be  the  whole  tribe  of  spu- 
rious, affected,  counterfeit,  and  hypocritical  virtues !  These  are  the  things  which  are 
ten  thousand  times  more  at  war  with  real  virtue,  these  are  the  things  which  are  ten 
thousand  times  more  at  war  with  real  duty,  than  any  vice  known  by  its  name  and  dis- 
tinguished by  its  proper  character. 

"  Far,  far  from  us  be  that  false  and  affected  candor  that  is  eternally  in  treatv  with 
crime — that  half  virtue,  which,  like  the  ambiguous  animal  that  flies  about  in  the  twilight 
of  a  compromise  between  day  and  night,  is,  to  a  just  man's  eye,  an  odious  and  disgusting 
thing.  There  is  no  middle  point,  my  lords,  in  which  the  commons  of  Great  Britain  can 
meet  tyranny  and  oppression." 

VOL.  1—5. 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

,  sir,  if  I  could  overcome  my  repugnance  to  compromises  in 
general,  I  should  object  to  this  one,  on  the  ground  of  the  inequality 
and  incongruity  of  the  interests  to  be  compromised.  Why,  sir, 
according  to  the  views  I  have  submitted,  California  ought  to  come 
in,  and  must  come  in,  whether  slavery  stand  or  fall  in  the  District 
of  Columbia;  whether  slavery  stand  or  fall  in  New  Mexico  and 
Eastern  California ;  and  even  whether  slavery  stand  or  fall  in  the 
slave  states.  California  ought  to  come  in,  being  a  free  state ;  and, 
under  the  circumstances  of  her  conquest,  her  compact,  her  aban- 
donment, her  justifiable  and  necessary  establishment  of  a  constitu- 
tion, and  the  inevitable  dismemberment  of  the  empire  consequent 
upon  her  rejection,  I  should  have  voted  for  her  admission  even  if. 
she  had  come  as  a  slave  state.  California  ought  to  come  in,  and 
must  come  in  at  all  events.  It  is,  then,  an  independent,  a  para- 
mount question.  What,  then,  are  these  questions  arising  out  of 
slavery,  thus  interposed,  but  collateral  questions?  They  are 
unnecessary  and  incongruous,  and  therefore  false  issues,  not 
introduced  designedly,  indeed,  to  defeat  that  great  policy,  yet  un- 
avoidably tending  to  that  end. 

Mr.  FOOTE.  "Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me  to  ask  him, 
if  the  Senate  is  to  understand  him  as  saying  that  he  would  vote 
for  the  admission  of  California  if  she  came  here  seeking  admission 
as  a  slave  state  ? 

Mr.  SKWARD.  I  reply,  as  I  said  before,  that  even  if  California 
had  come  as  a  slave  state,  yet  coming  under  the  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances I  have  described,  and  in  view  of  the  consequences  of 
a  dismemberment  of  the  empire,  consequent  upon  her  rejection,  I 
should  have  voted  for  her  admission,  even  though  she  had  come  as 
a  slave  state.  But  I  should  not  have  voted  for  her  admission 
otherwise. 

I  remark  in  the  next  place,  that  consent  on  my  part  would  be 
disingenuous  and  fraudulent,  because  the  compromise  would  be 
unavailing. 

It  is  now  avowed  by  the  honorable  senator  from  South  Carolina, 
[Mr.  CALHOUN,]  that  nothing  will  satisfy  the  slave  states  but  a 
compromise  that  will  convince  them  that  they  can  remain  in  the 
Union  consistently  with  their  honor  and  their  safety.  And  what 
are  the  concessions  which  will  have  that  effect.  Here  they  are,  in 
the  words  of  that  senator : 

"  The  north  must  do  justice  by  conceding  to  the  south  an  equal  right  in  the  acquired 
territory,  and  do  her  duty  by  causing  the  stipulations  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  to  b« 


SLAVERY.  63 

faithfully  fulfilled — cease  the  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  and  provide  for  the  insertion 
of  a  provision  hi  the  Constitution,  by  an  amendment,  which  will  restore  to  the  south  in 
substance  the  power  she  possessed,  of  protecting  herself,  before  the  equilibrium  between 
the  sections  was  destroyed  by  the  action  of  this  government." 

These  terms  amount  to  this :  that  the  free  states  having  already, 
or  although  they  may  hereafter  have,  majorities  of  population,  and 
majorities  in  both  houses  of  Congress,  shall  concede  to  the  slave 
states,  being  in  a  minority  in  both,  the  unequal  advantage  of  an 
equality.  That  is,  that  we  shall  alter  the  Constitution  so  as  to 
convert  the  Government  from  a  national  democracy,  operating  by 
a  constitutional  majority  of  voices,  into  a  federal  alliance,  in 
which  the  minority  shall  have  a  veto  against  the  majority.  And 
this  would  be  nothing  less  than  to  return  to  the  original  Articles  of 
Confederation. 

I  will  not  stop  to  protest  against  the  injustice  or  the  inexpediency 
of  an  innovation  which,  if  it  was  practicable,  would  be  so  entirely 
subversive  of  the  principle  of  democratic  institutions.  It  is  enough 
to  say  that  it  is  totally  impracticable.  The  free,  states,  northern 
and  western,  have  acquiesced  in  the  long  and  nearly  unbroken 
ascendency  of  the  slave  states  under  the  Constitution,  because  the 
result  happened  under  the  Constitution.  But  they  have  honor 
and  interests  to  preserve,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
mankind,  or  in  the  character  of  that  people  to  induce  an  expec- 
tation that  they,  loyal  as  they  are,  are  insensible  to  the  duty  of 
defending  them.  But  the  scheme  would  still  be  impracticable, 
even  if  this  difficulty  were  overcome.  What  is  proposed  is  a 
political  equilibrium.  Every  political  equilibrium  requires  a 
physical  equilibrium  to  rest  upon,  and  is  valueless  without  it.  To 
constitute  a  physical  equilibrium  between  the  slave  states  and  the 
free  states,  requires,  first,  an  equality  of  territory,  or  some  near 
approximation.  And  this  is  already  lost.  But  it  requires  much 
more  than  this.  It  requires  an  equality  or  a  proximate  equality 
in  the  number  of  slaves  and  freemen.  And  this  must  be  per- 
petual. 

But  the  census  of  1840  gives  a  slave  basis  of  only  2,500,000, 
and  a  free  basis  of  14,500,000.  And  the  population  on  the  slave 
basis  increases  in  the  ratio  of  25  per  cent,  for  ten  years,  while 
that  on  the  free  basis  advances  at  the  rate  of  38  per  cent.  The 
accelerating  movement  of  the  free  population,  now  complained 
of,  will  occupy  the  new  territories  with  pioneers,  and  every  day  in- 
creases the  difficulty  of  forcing  or  insinuating  slavery  into  regions 


64  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

which  freemen  have  pre-occupied.  And  if  this  were  possible, 
the  African  slave  trade  is  prohibited,  and  the  domestic  increase 
is  not  sufficient  to  supply  the  new  slave  states  which  are  expected 
to  maintain  the  equilibrium.  The  theory  of  a  new  political 
equilibrium  claims  that  it  once  existed,  and  has  been  lost.  When 
lost,  and  how  ?  It  began  to  be  lost  in  1787,  when  preliminary  ar- 
rangements were  made  to  admit  five  new  free  states  in  the  north- 
west territory,  two  years  before  the  Constitution  was  finally 
adopted  ;  that  is,  it  began  to  be  lost  two  years  before  it  began  to 
exist! 

Sir,  the  equilibrium,  if  restored,  would  be  lost  again,  and  lost 
more  rapidly  than  it  was  before.  The  progress  of  the  free  popu- 
lation is  to  be  accelerated  by  increased  emigration,  and  by  new 
tides  from  South  America  and  from  Europe  and  Asia,  while  that 
of  the  slaves  is  to  be  checked  and  retarded  by  inevitable  partial 
emancipation.  "  Nothing,"  says  Montesquieu,  "  reduces  a  man 
so  low  as  always  to  see  freemen,  and  yet  not  be  free.  Persons  in 
that  condition  are  natural  enemies  of  the  state,  and  their  numbers 
would  be  dangerous  if  increased  too  high."  Sir,  the  fugitive  slave 
colonies  and  the  emancipated  slave  colonies  in  the  free  states,  in 
Canada,  and  in  Liberia,  are  the  best  guaranties  South  Carolina  has 
for  the  perpetuity  of  slavery. 

Nor  would  success  attend  any  of  the  details  of  this  compromise. 
And,  first,  I  advert  to  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  law  con- 
cerning fugitives  from  service  or  labor.  I  shall  speak  on  this 
as  on  all  subjects,  with  due  respect,  but  yet  frankly  and  without 
reservation.  The  Constitution  contains  only  a  compact,  which 
rests  for  its  execution  on  the  states.  Not  content  with  this,  the 
slave  states  induced  legislation  by  Congress ;  and  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  have  virtually  decided  that  the  whole 
subject  is  within  the  province  of  Congress,  and  exclusive  of  state 
authority.  Nay,  they  have  decided  that  slaves  are  to  be  regarded 
not  merely  as  persons  to  be  claimed,  but  as  property  and  chattels, 
to  be  seized  without  any  legal  authority  or  claim  whatever.  The 
compact  is  thus  subverted  by  the  procurement  of  the  slave  states. 
With  what  reason,  then,  can  they  expect  the  states  ex  gratia  to 
reassume  the  obligations  from  which  they  caused  those  states  to 
be  discharged  ?  I  say,  then,  to  the  slave  states,  you  are  entitled 
to  no  more  stringent  laws  ;  and  that  snch  laws  would  be  useless. 
The  cause  of  the  inefficiency  of  the  present  statute  is  not  at  all 


FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW.  65 

the  leniency  of  its  provisions.  It  is  a  law  that  deprives  the 
alleged  refugee  from  a  legal  obligation  not  assumed  by  him,  but 
imposed  upon  him  by  laws  enacted  before  he  was  born,  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  of  any  certain  judicial  process  of 
examination  of  the  claim  set  up  by  his  pursuer,  and  finally  de- 
grades him  into  a  chattel  which  may  be  seized  and  carried  away 
peaceably  wherever  found,  even  although  exercising  the  rights 
and  responsibilities  of  a  free  citizen  of  the  commonwealth  in 
which  he  resides,  and  of  the  United  States — a  law  which  denies 
to  the  citizen  all  the  safeguards  of  personal  liberty,  to  render 
less  frequent  the  escape  of  the  bondman.  And  since  complaints 
are  so  freely  made  against  the  one  side,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to 
declare  that  there  have  been  even  greater  faults  on  the  other 
side.  Relying  on  the  perversion  of  the  Constitution,  which  makes 
slaves  mere  chattels,  the  slave  states  have  applied  to  them  the 
principles  of  the  criminal  law,  and  have  held  that  he  who  aided 
.the  escape  of  his  fellow-man  from  bondage  was  guilty  of  a  lar- 
ceny in  stealing  him.  I  speak  of  what  I  know.  Two  instances 
came  within  my  own  knowledge,  in  which  governors  of  slave 
states,  under  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  relating  to  fugitives 
from  justice,  demanded  from  the  governor  of  a  free  state  the  sur- 
render of  persons  as  thieves  whose  alleged  offences  consisted  in 
constructive  larceny  of  the  rags  that  covered  the  persons  of  female 
slaves,  whose  attempt  at  escape  they  had  permitted  or  assisted. 

We  deem  the  principle  of  the  law  for  the  recapture  of  fugitives, 
as  thus  expounded,  therefore,  unjust,  unconstitutional,  and  im- 
moral ;  and  thus,  while  patriotism  withholds  its  approbation,  the 
consciences  of  our  people  condemn  it. 

You  will  say  that  these  convictions  of  ours  are  disloyal.  Grant 
it  for  the  sake  of  argument.  They  are,  nevertheless,  honest ;  and 
the  law  is  to  be  executed  among  us,  not  among  you  ;  not  by  us, 
but  by  the  federal  authority.  Has  any  government  ever  suc- 
ceeded in  changing  the  moral  convictions  of  its  subjects  by  force? 
But  these  convictions  imply  no  disloyalty.  "We  reverence  the 
Constitution,  although  we  perceive  this  defect,  just  as  we  acknow- 
ledge the  splendor  and  the  power  of  the  sun,  although  its  surface 
is  tarnished  with  here  and  there  an  opaque  spot. 

Your  constitution  and  laws  convert  hospitality  to  the  refugee 
from  the  most  degrading  oppression  on  earth  into  a  crime,  but 
all  mankind  except  you  esteem  that  hospitality  a  virtue.  The 


66  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

right  of  extradition  of  a  fugitive  from  justice  is  not  admitted  by 
the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations,  but  rests  in  voluntary  com- 
pacts. I  know  of  only  two  compacts  found  in  diplomatic  history 
that  admitted  EXTRADITION  OF  SLAVES.  Here  is  one  of  them.  It 
is  found  in  a  treaty  of  peace  made  between  Alexander,  Comnenus, 
and  Leontine,  Greek  Emperors  at  Constantinople,  and  Oleg,  King 
of  Russia,  in  the  year  902,  and  is  in  these  words  : 

"  If  a  Russian  slave  take  flight,  or  even  if  he  is  carried  away  by  any  one,  under  pre- 
tence of  having  been  bought,  his  master  shall  have  the  right  and  power  to  pursue  him, 
and  hunt  for  and  capture  him  wherever  he  shall  be  found  ;  and  any  person  who  shall 
oppose  the  master  in  the  execution  of  this  right,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  violating  this 
treaty,  and  be  punished  accordingly." 

This  was  in  the  year  of  Grace,  902,  in  the  period  called  the 
"  Dark  Ages,"  and  the  contracting  powers  were  despotisms.  And 
here  is  the  other : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service 
or  labor  is  due." 

This  is  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  1787, 
and  the  parties  were  the  republican  states  of  this  Union.  The 
law  of  nations  disavows  such  compacts ;  the  law  of  nature,  written 
on  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  freemen,  repudiates  them.  Armed 
power  could  not  enforce  them,  because  there  is  no  public  con- 
science to  sustain  them.  I  know  that  there  are  laws  of  various 
sorts  which  regulate  the  conduct  of  men.  There  are  constitutions 
and  statutes,  codes  mercantile  and  codes  civil ;  but  when  we  are 
legislating  for  states,  especially  when  we  are  founding  states,  all 
these  laws  must  be  brought  to  the  standard  of  the  laws  of  God, 
and  must  be  tried  by  that  standard,  and  must  stand  or  fall  by  it. 
This  principle  was  happily  explained  by  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished political  philosophers  of  England  in  these  emphatic 
words : 

"  There  is  but  one  law  for  all,  namely,  that  law  which  governs  all  law  ;  the  law  of  our 

tor,  the  law  of  humanity,  justice,  equity,  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.     So  far 

as  any  laws  fortify  this  primeval  law,  and  give  it  more  precision,  more  energy,  more 

ir  declarations,  such  laws  enter  into  the  sanctuary  and  participate  in  the 

aacredneu  of  its  character ;  but  the  man  who  quotes  as  precedents  the  abuses  of  tvranrs 

d  robbers,  pollutes  the  very  fountains  of  justice,  destroys  the  foundations  of  all  law. 

efore  removes  the  only  safeguard  against  evil  men,  whether  governors  or  gov- 

from  oecomS1  rebd  "     FeVent3  &overnors  from  becoming  tyrants,  and  the  governed 

There  was  deep  philosophy  in  the  confession  of  an  eminent 
English  judge.  When  he  had  condemned  a  young  woman  to 


THE  HIGHER  LAW.  67 

death,  under  the  late  sanguinary  code  of  his  country,  for  her  first 
petty  theft,  she  fell  down  dead  at  his  feet.  "  I  seem  to  myself," 
said  he,  "  to  have  been  pronouncing  sentence,  not  against  the  pris- 
oner, but  against  the  law  itself." 

To  conclude  on  this  point.  "We  are  not  slaveholders.  We 
cannot,  in  our  judgment,  be  either  true  Christians  or  real  freemen, 
if  we  impose  on  another  a  chain  that  we  defy  all  human  power  to 
fasten  on  ourselves.  You  believe  and  think  otherwise,  and  doubt- 
less with  equal  sincerity.  We  judge  you  not,  and  He  alone  who 
ordained  the  conscience  of  man  and  its  laws  of  action  can  judge 
us.  Do  we,  then,  in  this  conflict  of  opinion,  demand  of  you  an 
unreasonable  thing  in  asking  that,  since  you  will  have  property 
that  can  and  will  exercise  human  powers  to  effect  its  escape,  you 
shall  be  your  own  police,  and  in  acting  among  us  as  such  you  shall 
conform  to  principles  indispensable  to  the  security  of  admitted 
rights  of  freemen  ?  If  you  will  have  this  law  executed,  you  must 
alleviate,  not  increase,  its  rigors. 

Another  feature  in  most  of  these  plans  of  compromise  is  a  bill 
of  peace  for  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  and  this  bill  of 
peace  we  cannot  grant.  We  of  the  free  states  are,  equally  with 
you  of  the  slaves  states,  responsible  for  the  existence  of  slavery  in 
this  district,  the  field  exclusively  of  our  common  legislation.  I 
regret  that,  as  yet,  I  see  little  reason  to  hope  that  a  majority  in 
favor  of  emancipation  exists  here.  The  legislature  of  ISTew  York, 
from  whom,  with  great  deference,  I  dissent,  seems  willing  to  accept 
now  the  extinction  of  the  slave  trade,  and  waive  emancipation. 
But  we  shall  assume  the  whole  responsibility  if  we  stipulate  not  to 
exercise  the  power  hereafter  when  a  majority  shall  be  obtained. 
Nor  will  the  plea  with  which  you  would  furnish  us  be  of  any 
avail.  If  I  could  understand  so  mysterious  a  paradox  myself,  I 
never  should  be  able  to  explain  to  the  apprehension  of  the  people 
whom  I  represent,  how  it  was  that  an  absolute  and  express  power 
to  legislate  in  all  cases  over  the  District  of  Columbia  wras  embar- 
rassed and  defeated  by  an  implied  condition  not  to  legislate  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  this  district.  Sir,  I  shall  vote  for  that  mea- 
sure, and  am  willing  to  appropriate  any  means  necessary  to  carry 
it  into  execution.  And,  if  I  shall  be  asked  what  I  did  to  embellish 
the  capital  of  my  country,  I  will  point  to  her  freedmeu,  and  say, 
These  are  the  monuments  of  my  munificence  ! 

If  I  was  willing  to  advance  a  cause  that  I  deem  sacred  by  disin- 


68  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

genuous  means,  I  would  advise  you  to  adopt  those  means  of  com- 
promise which  I  have  thus  examined.  The  echo  is  not  quicker  in 
its  response  than  would  be  that  loud  and  universal  cry  of  repeal, 
that  would  not  die  away  until  the  habeas  corpus  was  secured  to  the 
alleged  fugitive  from  bondage,  and  the  symmetry  of  the  free  insti- 
tutions of  the  capital  was  perfected. 

I  apply  the  same  observations  to  the  proposition  fof  a  waiver  of 
the  proviso  of  freedom  in  territorial  charters.  Thus  far  you  have 
only  direct  popular  action  in  favor  of  that  ordinance,  and  there 
seems  even  to  be  a  partial  disposition  to  await  the  action  of  the 
people  of  the  new  territories,  as  we  have  compulsorily  waited  for 
it  in  California.  But  I  must  tell  you,  nevertheless,  in  candor  and 
in  plainness,  that  the  spirit  of  the  people  of  the  free  states  is  set 
upon  a  spring  that  rises  with  the  pressure  put  upon  it.  That 
spring,  if  pressed  too  hard,  will  give  a  recoil  that  will  not  leave 
here  one  servant  who  knew  his  master's  will,  and  did  it  not. 

You  will  say  that  this  implies  violence.  Not  at  all.  It  implies 
only  peaceful,  lawful,  constitutional,  customary  action.  I  cannot 
too  strongly  express  my  surprise  that  those  who  insist  that  the  peo- 
ple of  the  slave  states  cannot  be  held  back  from  remedies  outside 
of  the  Constitution,  should  so  far  misunderstand  us  of  the  free 
states  as  to  suppose  we  would  not  exercise  our  constitutional  rights 
to  sustain  the  policy  which  we  deem  just  and  beneficent. 

I  come  now  to  notice  the  suggested  compromise  of  the  boundary 
'between  Texas  and  New  Mexico.  This  is  a  judicial  question  in  its 
nature,  or  at  least  a  question  of  legal  right  and  title.  If  it  is  to  be 
compromised  at  all,  it  is  due  to  the  two  parties,  and  to  national  dig- 
nity as  well  as  to  justice,  that  it  be  kept  separate  from  compro- 
mises proceeding  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  and  be  settled  by 
itself  alone. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that  while  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss 
the  questions  alluded  to  in  this  connection  by  the  honorable  and 
distinguished  senator  from  Massachusetts,  I  am  not  able  to  agree 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  alleged  obligation  of  Congress  to  admit 
four  new  slave  states,  to  be  formed  in  the  state  of  Texas.  There 
are  several  questions  arising  out  of  that  subject,  upon  which  I  am 
not  prepared  to  decide  now,  and  which  I  desire  to  reserve  for 
future  consideration.  One  of  these  is,  whether  the  article  of  an- 
nexation does  really  deprive  Congress  of  the  right  to  exercise  its 
choice  in  regard  to  the  sub-division  of  Texas  into  four  additional 


TEXAS  BOUNDARY.  69 

states.  It  seems  to  me  by  no  means  so  plain  a  question  as  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts  assumed,  and  that  it  must  be  left  to 
remain  an  open  question,  as  it  is  a  great  question,  whether  Con- 
gress is  not  a  party  whose  future  consent  is  necessary  to  the  forma- 
tion of  new  states  out  of  Texas. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Supposing  Congress  to  have  the  authority  to 
fix  the  number,  and  time  of  election,  and  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentatives, &c.,  the  question  is,  whether,  if  new  states  are  formed 
out  of  Texas,  to  come  into  this  Union,  there  is  not  a  solemn  pledge 
by  law  that  they  have  a  right  to  come  in  as  slave  states  ? 

Mr.  SEWAKD.  When  the  states  are  once  formed,  they  have  the 
right  to  come  in  as  free  or  slave  states,  according  to  their  own 
choice ;  but  what  I  insist  is,  that  they  cannot  be  formed  at  all 
without  the  consent  of  Congress,  to  be  hereafter  given,  which 
consent  Congress  is  not  .obliged  to  give.  But  I  pass  that  question 
for  the  present,  and  proceed  to  say  that  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit 
that  the  article  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  is  itself  constitutional. 
I  find  no  authority  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  for  the 
annexation  of  foreign  countries  by  a  resolution  of  Congress,  and  no 
power  adequate  to  that  purpose  but  the  treaty-making  power  of 
the  President  and  the  Senate.  Entertaining  this  view,  I  must  insist 
that  the  constitutionality  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  itself  shall  be 
cleared  up  before  I  can  agree  to  the  admission  of  any  new  states  to 
be  formed  within  Texas. 

Mr.  FOOTE.  Did  not  I  hear  the  senator  observe  that  he  would 
admit  California,  whether  slavery  was  or  was  not  precluded  from 
these  territories  ? 

Mr.  SEWAKD.  I  said  I  would  have  voted  for  the  admission  of 
California  even  as  a  slave  state,  under  the  extraordinary  circum- 
stances which  I  have  before  distinctly  described.  I  say  that  now ; 
but  I  say  also,  that  before  I  would  agree  to  admit  any  more  states 
from  Texas,  the  circumstances  which  render  such  an  act  necessary 
must  be  shown,  and  must  be  such  as  to  determine  my  obligation 
to  do  so  ;  and  that  is  precisely  what  I  insist  cannot  be  settled  now. 
It  must  be  left  for  those  to  whom  the  responsibility  will  belong. 

Mr.  President,  I  understand,  and  I  am  happy  in  understanding, 
that  I  agree  with  the  honorable  senator  from  Massachusetts,  that 
there  is  no  obligation  upon  Congress  to  admit  four  new  slave 
states  out  of  Texas,  but  that  Congress  has  reserved  her  right  to 
say  whether  those  states  shall  be  formed  and  admitted  or  not.  I 


70  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

shall  rely  on  that  reservation.  I  shall  vote  to  admit  no  more  slave 
states,  unless  under  circumstances  absolutely  compulsory — and  no 
such  case  is  now  foreseen. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  What  I  said  was,  that  if  the  states  hereafter  to 
be  made  out  of  Texas  choose  to  come  in  as  slave  states,  they  have 
a  right  so  to  do. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  My  position  is,  that  they  have  not  a  right  to  come 
in  at  all,  if  Congress  rejects  their  institutions.  The  subdivision  of 
Texas  is  a  matter  optional  with  both  parties,  Texas  and  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Does  the  honorable  senator  mean  to  say  that 
Congress  can  hereafter  decide  whether  they  shall  be  slave  or  free 
states  ? 

Mr.  SEWAED.  I  mean  to  say  that  Congress  can  hereafter  decide 
whether  any  states,  slave  or  free,  can  be  framed  out  of  Texas.  If 
they  should  never  be  framed  out  of  Texas,  they  never  could  be 
admitted. 

Another  objection  arises  out  of  the  principle  on  which  the 
demand  for  compromise  rests.  That  principle  assumes  a  classifi- 
cation of  the  states  as  northern  and  southern  states,  as  it  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  honorable  senator  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  CAL- 
uoLTf]  but  into  slave  states  and  free  states,  as  more  directly 
expressed  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Georgia,  [Mr.  BERRIEX.] 
The  argument  is,  that  the  states  are  severally  equal,  and  that  these 
two  classes  were  equal  at  the  first,  and  that  the  Constitution  was 
founded  on  that  equilibrium  ;  that  the  states  being  equal,  and  the 
classes  of  the  states  being  equal  in  rights,  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  constituting  an  association  in  which  each  state,  and  each  of 
these  classes  of  states,  respectively,  contribute  in  due  proportions ; 
that  the  new  territories  are  a  common  acquisition,  and  the  people 
of  these  several  states  and  classes  of  states,  have  an  equal  right  to 
participate  in  them,  respectively ;  that  the  right  of  the  people  of 
the  slave  states  to  emigrate  to  the  territories  with  their  slaves  as 
property  is  necessary  to  afford  such  a  participation  on  their  part, 
inasmuch  as  the  people  of  the  free  states  emigrate  into  the  same 
territories  with  their  property.  And  the  argument  deduces  from 
this  right  the  principle  that,  if  Congress  exclude  slavery  from  any 
part  of  this  new  domain,  it  would  be  only  just  to  set  off  a  portion 
of  the  domain — some  say  south  36°  30',  others  south  of  34° — 


FREEDOM,  NATIONAL ;  SLAVERY,  SECTIONAL.  71 

which  should  be  regarded  at  least  as  free  to  slavery,  and  to  be 
organized  into  slave  states. 

Argument  ingenious  and  subtle,  declamation  earnest  and  bold, 
and  persuasion  gentle  and  winning  as  the  voice  of  the  turtle  dove 
when  it  is  heard  in  the  land,  all  alike  and  all  together  have  failed 
to  convince  me  of  the  soundness  of  this- principle  of  the  proposed 
compromise,  or  of  any  one  of  the  propositions  on  which  it  is 
attempted  to  be  established. 

How  is  the  original  equality  of  the  states  proved  ?  It  rests  on 
a  syllogism  of  Yattel,  as  follows :  All  men  are  equal  by  the  law 
of  nature  and  of  nations.  But  states  are  only  lawful  aggrega- 
tions of  individual  men,  who  severally  are  equal.  Therefore, 
states  are  equal  in  natural  rights.  All  this  is  just  and  sound. 
But  assuming  the  same  premises,  to  wit,  that  all  men  are  equal 
by  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations,  the  right  of  property  in 
slaves  falls  to  the  ground  ;  for  one  who  is  equal  to  another  cannot 
be  the  owner  or  property  of  that  other.  But  you  answer,  that  the 
Constitution  recognizes  property  in  slaves.  It  would  be  sufficient, 
then,  to  reply,  that  this  constitutional  recognition  must  be  void, 
because  it  is  repugnant  to  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  But 
I  deny  that  the  Constitution  recognizes  property  in  man.  I  submit, 
on  the  other  hand,  most  respectfully,  that  the  Constitution  not 
merely  does  not  affirm  that  principle,  but,  on  the  contrary,  alto- 
gether excludes  it. 

The  Constitution  does  not  expressly  affirm  anything  on  the 
subject ;  all  that  it  contains  is  two  incidental  allusions  to  slaves. 
These  are,  first,  in  the  provision  establishing  a  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation and  taxation  ;  and,  secondly,  in  the  provision  relating 
to  fugitives  from,  labor.  In  both  cases,  the  Constitution  design- 
edly mentions  slaves,  not  as  slaves,  much  less  as  chattels,  but  as 
persons.  That  this  recognition  of  them  as  persons  was  designed 
is  historically  known,  and  I  think  was  never  denied.  I  give  only 
two  of  the  manifold  proofs.  First,  JOHN  JAY,  in  the  Federalist, 
says : 

"  Let  the  case  of  the  slaves  be  considered,  as  it  is  in  truth,  a  peculiar  one.  Let  the 
compromising  expedient  of  the  Constitution  be  mutually  adopted  which  regards  them  as 
inhabitants,  but  as  debased  below  the  equal  level  of  free  inhabitants,  which  regards  the 
slave  as  divested  of  two-fifths  of  the  man." 

Yes,  sir,  of  two-fifths,  but  of  only  two-fifths  ;  leaving  still  three- 
fifths  ;  leaving  the  slave  still  an  mhdhitcmt^  a  person,  a  living, 
breathing,  moving,  reasoning,  immortal  man. 


72  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

The  other  proof  is  from  the  debates  in  the  convention.  It  is 
brief,  and  I  think  instructive : 

"  AUGUST  28,  1787. 

"  Mr.  BUTLEE  and  Mr.  PINCKNKT  moved  to  require  fugitive  slaves  and  servants  to  be 
delivered  up  like  convicts. 

"  Mr.  WILSON.  This  would  oblige  the  executive  of  the  state  to  do  it  at  public  expense. 
"  Mr.  SHERMAN  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave 
or  a  servant  than  a  horse. 

"  Mr.  BUTLEK  withdrew  his  proposition,  in  order  that  some  particular  provision  might 
be  made,  apart  from  this  article." 

AUGUST  29,  1787. 

"  Mr.  BUTLKB  moved  to  insert  after  article  15 j :  'If  any  person  bound  to  service  or  la- 
bor in  any  of  the  United  States  shall  escape  into  another  state,  he  or  she  shall  not  be 
discharged  from  such  service  or  labor  in  consequence  of  any  regulation  subsisting  in  the 
state  to  which  they  escape,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the  person  justly  claiming  their 
service  or  labor.' '' 

"  After  the  engrossment,  September  15,  page  550,  article  4,  section  2,  the  third  para- 
graph, the  term  'legally'  was  struck  out,  and  the  words  '  under  the  laws  thereof '  in- 
serted after  the  word  '  state,'  in  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  some  who  thought  the 
term  '  legal '  equivocal,  and  favoring  the  idea  that  slavery  was  legal  in  a  moral  view."*— 
Madison  Debates,  pp.  487,  492. 

I  deem  it  established,  then,  that  the  Constitution  does  not  recog- 
nize property  in  man,  but  leaves  that  question,  as  between  the 
states,  to  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  That  law,  as  expounded 
by  Yattel,  is  founded  on  the  reason  of  things.  When  God  had 
created  the  earth,  with  its  wonderful  adaptations,  He  gave  do- 
minion over  it  to  man,  absolute  human  dominion.  The  title  of 
that  dominion,  thus  bestowed,  would  have  been  incomplete,  if  the 
lord  of  all  terrestrial  things  could  himself  have  been  the  property 
of  his  fellow-man. 

The  right  to  have  a  slave  implies  the  right  in  some  one  to  make 
the  slave ;  that  right  must  be  equal  and  mutual,  and  this  would 
resolve  society  into  a  state  of  perpetual  war.  But  if  we  grant  the 
original  equality  of  the  states,  and  grant  also  the  constitutional  re- 
cognition of  slaves  as  property,  still  the  argument  we  are  consid- 
ering fails.  Because  the  states  are  not  parties  to  the  Constitution 
as  states ;  it  is  the  Constitution  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States. 

But  even  if  the  states  continue  under  the  Constitution  as  states, 
they  nevertheless  surrendered  their  equality  as  states,  and  submit- 
ted themselves  to  the  sway  of  the  numerical  majority,  with  quali- 
fications or  checks ;  first,  of  the  representation  of  three-fifths  of 
slaves  in  the  ratio  of  representation  and  taxation  ;  and,  secondly, 
of  the  equal  representation  of  states  in  the  Senate. 

The  proposition  of  an  established  classification  of  states  as  slave 


FREEDOM,  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY,  SECTIONAL.  73 

states  and  free  states,  as  insisted  on  by  some,  and  into  northeft^n  and 
southern,  as  maintained  by  others,  seems  to  me  purely  imaginary, 
and  of  course  the  supposed  equilibrium  of  those  classes  a  mere  con- 
ceit. This  must  be  so,  because,  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted, 
twelve  of  the  thirteen  states  were  slave  states,  and  so  there  was  no 
equilibrium.  And  so  as  to  the  classification  of  states  as  northern 
states  and  southern  states.  It  is  the  maintenance  of  slavery  by 
law  in  a  state,  not  parallels  of  latitude,  that  makes  it  a  southern 
state ;  and  the  absence  of  this,  that  makes  it  a  northern  state.  And 
so  all  the  states,  save  one,  were  southern  states,  and  there  was  no 
equilibrium.  But  the  Constitution  was  made  not  only  for  southern 
and  northern  states,  but  for  states  neither  northern  nor  southern, 
namely,  the  western  states,  their  coming  in  being  foreseen  and 
provided  for. 

It  needs  little  argument  to  show  that  the  idea  of  a  joint  stock 
association,  or  a  copartnership,  as  applicable  even  by  its  analogies 
to  the  United  States,  is  erroneous,  with  all  the  consequences  fan- 
cifully deduced  from  it.  The  United  States  are  a  political  state, 
or  organized  society,  whose  end  is  government,  for  the  security, 
welfare,  and  happiness  of  all  who  live  under  its  protection.  The 
theory  I  am  combating  reduces  the  objects  of  government  to  the 
mere  spoils  of  conquest.  Contrary  to  a  theory  so  debasing,  the 
preamble  of  the  Constitution  not  only  asserts  the  sovereignty  to  be, 
not  in  the  states,  but  in  the  people,  but  also  promulgates  the  objects 
of  the  Constitution : 

"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  GEN- 
ERAL WELFABE,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Con- 
stitution." 

Objects  sublime  and  benevolent !  They  exclude  the  very  idea 
of  conquests,  to  be  either  divided  among  states  or  even  enjoyed  by 
them,  for  the  purpose  of  securing,  not  the  blessings  of  liberty,  but 
the  evils  of  slavery.  There  is  a  novelty  in  the  principle  of  the 
proposed  compromise  which  condemns  it.  Simultaneously  with 
the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  Yirginia  ceded  to  the  United 
States  her  domain,  which  then  extended  to  the  Mississippi,  and 
was  even  claimed  to  extend  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  Congress  ac- 
cepted it,  and  unanimously  devoted  the  domain  to  freedom,  in  the 
language  from  which  the  ordinance  now  so  severely  condemned 
was  borrowed.  Five  states  have  already  been  organized  on  this 


74  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

domain,  from  all  of  which,  in  pursuance  of  that  ordinance,  slavery- 
is  excluded.  How  did  it  happen  that  this  theory  of  the  equality 
of  states,  of  the  classification  of  states,  of  the  equilibrium  of  states, 
of  the  title  of  the  states  to  common  enjoyment  of  the  domain,  or  to 
an  equitable  and  just  partition  between  them,  was  never  promul- 
gated, nor  even  dreamed  of,  by  the  slave  states,  when  they  unani- 
mously consented  to  that  ordinance  ? 

There  is  another  aspect  of  the  principle  of  compromise  which 
deserves  consideration.  It  assumes  that  slavery,  if  not  the  only 
institution  in  a  slave  state,  is  at  least  a  ruling  institution,  and  that 
this  characteristic  is  recognized  by  the  Constitution.  But  slavery 
is  only  one  of  many  institutions  there.  Freedom  is  equally  an 
institution  there.  Slavery  is  only  a  temporary,  accidental,  partial, 
and  incongruous  one.  Freedom,  on  the  contrary,  is  a  perpetual, 
organic,  universal  one,  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  slaveholder  himself  stands  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  latter,  in  common  with  all  the  free  citizens  of  the  state. 
But  it  is,  moreover,  an  indispensable  institution.  You  may  sepa- 
rate slavery  from  South  Carolina,  and  the  state  will  still  remain  ; 
but  if  you  subvert  freedom  there,  the  state  will  cease  to  exist. 
But  the  principle  of  this  compromise  gives  complete  ascendency  in 
the  slave  states,  and  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  the 
subordinate,  accidental,  and  incongruous  institution,  over  its  para- 
mount antagonist.  To  reduce  this  claim  of  slavery  to  an  absurdity, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  add  that  there  are  only  two  states  in  which 
slaves  are  a  majority,  and  not  one  in  which  the  slaveholders  are 
not  a  very  disproportionate  minority. 

But  there  is  yet  another  aspect  in  which  this  principle  must  be 
examined.  It  regards  the  domain  only  as  a  possession,  to  be  enjoyed 
either  in  common  or  by  partition  by  the  citizens  of  the  old  states. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  national  domain  is  ours.  It  is  true  it 
was  acquired  by  the  valor  and  with  the  wealth  of  the  whole  nation. 
But  we  hold,  nevertheless,  no  arbitrary  power  over  it.  We  hold 
no  arbitrary  authority  over  anything,  whether  acquired  lawfully 
or  seized  by  usurpation.  The  Constitution  regulates  our  steward- 
ship ;  the  Constitution  devotes  the  domain  to  union,  to  justice,  to 
defence,  to  welfare,  and  to  liberty. 

But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution,  which  regulates 
our  authority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to  the  same  noble 
purposes.  The  territory  is  a  part,  no  inconsiderable  part,  of  the 


FREEDOM,  NATIONAL ;  SLAVERY,  SECTIONAL.  75 

common  heritage  of  mankind,  bestowed  upon  them  by  the  Creator 
of  the  universe.  We  are  his  stewards,  and  must  so  discharge  our 
trust  as  to  secure  in  the  highest  attainable  degree  their  happiness. 
How  momentous  that  trust  is,  we  may  learn  from  the  instructions 
of  the  founder  of  modern  philosophy  : 

"  No  man,"  says  Bacon,  "  can  by  care-taking,  as  the  Scripture  saith,  add  a  cubit  to  his 
stature  in  this  little  model  of  a  man's  body ;  but,  in  the  great  frame  of  kingdoms  and 
commonwealths,  it  is  in  the  power  of  princes  or  estates  to  add  amplitude  and  greatness 
to  their  kingdoms.  For,  by  introducing  such  ordinances,  constitutions,  and  customs,  as 
are  wise,  they  may  sow  greatness  to  their  posterity  and  successors.  But  these  things 
are  commonly  not  observed,  but  left  to  take  their  chance." 

This  is  a  state,  and  we  are  deliberating  for  it,  just  as  our 
fathers  deliberated  in  establishing  the  institutions  we  enjoy.  What- 
ever superiority  there  is  in  our  condition  and  hopes  over  those  of 
any  other  "  kingdom"  or  "  estate,"  is  due  to  the  fortunate  circum- 
stance that  our  ancestors  did  not  leave  things  to  "take  their 
chance,"  but  that  they  "  added  amplitude  and  greatness "  to  our 
commonwealth  "by  introducing  such  ordinances,  constitutions, 
and  customs,  as  were  wise."  We  in  our  turn  have  succeeded  to 
the  same  responsibilities,  and  we  cannot  approach  the  duty  before 
us  wisely  or  justly,  except  we  raise  ourselves  to  the  great  consider- 
ation of  how  we  can  most  certainly  "  sow  greatness  to  our  posterity 
and  successors." 

And  now  the  simple,  bold,  and  even  awful  question  which  pre- 
sents itself  to  us  is  this  :  Shall  we,  who  are  founding  institutions, 
social  and  political,  for  countless  millions  ;  shall  we,  who  know  by 
experience  the  wise  and  the  just,  and  are  free  to  choose  them,  and 
to  reject  the  erroneous  and  unjust ;  shall  we  establish  human 
bondage,  or  permit  it  by  our  sufferance  to  be  established  ?  Sir,  our 
forefathers  would  not  have  hesitated  an  hour.  They  found  slavery 
existing  here,  and  they  left  it  only  because  they  could  not  remove 
it.  There  is  not  only  no  free  state  which  would  now  establish  it, 
but  there  is  no  slave  state,  which,  if  it  had  had  the  free  alternative 
as  we  now  have,  would  have  founded  slavery.  Indeed,  our  revolu- 
tionary predecessors  had  precisely  the  same  question  before  them 
in  establishing  an  organic  law  under  which  the  states  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin,  have  since  come  into 
the  Union,  and  they  solemnly  repudiated  and  excluded  slavery 
from  those  states  forever.  I  confess  that  the  most  alarming  evi- 
dence of  our  degeneracy  which  has  yet  been  given  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  we  even  debate  such  a  question. 


76  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Sir,  there  is  no  Christian  nation,  thus  free  to  choose  as  we  are, 
which  would  establish  slavery.  I  speak  on  due  eonsideration, 
because  Britain,  France,  and  Mexico,  have  abolished  slavery,  and 
all  other  European  states  are  preparing  to  abolish  it  as  speedily  as 
they  can.  "We  cannot  establish  slavery,  because  there  are  certain 
elements  of  the  security,  welfare,  and  greatness  of  nations,  which 
we  all  admit,  or  ought  to  admit,  and  recognize  as  essential ;  and 
these  are  the  security  of  natural  rights,  the  diffusion  of  knowledge, 
and  the  freedom  of  industry.  Slavery  is  incompatible  with  all 
of  these  ;  and,  just  in  proportion  to  the  extent  that  it  prevails  and 
controls  in  any  republican  state,  just  to  that  extent  it  subverts  the 
principle  of  democracy,  and  converts  the  state  into  an  aristocracy 
or  a  despotism.  I  will  not  oft'end  sensibilities  by  drawing  my 
proofs  from  the  slave  states  existing  among  ourselves  ;  but  I  will 
draw  them  from  the  greatest  of  the  European  slave  states. 

The  population  of  Kussia  in  Europe,  in  1844,  was    54,251.000 
Of  these  were  serfs    -  -     53,500,000 

The  residue  nobles,  clergy,  and  merchants,  &c.  -         751,000 

The  Imperial  government  abandons  the  control  over  the  fifty- 
three  and  a  half  millions  to  their  owners ;  and  these  owners, 
included  in  the  751,000,  are  thus  a  privileged  class,  or  aristocracy. 
If  ever  the  government  interferes  at  all  with  the  serfs,  who  are 
the  only  laboring  population,  it  is  by  edicts  designed  to  abridge 
their  opportunities  of  education,  and  thus  continue  their  debase^ 
ment.  What  was  the  origin  of  this  system  ?  Conquest,  in  which 
the  captivity  of  the  conquered  was  made  perpetual  and  hereditary. 
This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  identical  with  American  slavery,  only  at 
one  and  the  same  time  exaggerated  by  the  greater  disproportion 
between  the  privileged  classes  and  the  slaves  in  their  respective 
numbers,  and  yet  relieved  of  the  unhappiest  feature  of  American 
slavery,  the  distinction  of  castes.  What  but  this  renders  Kussia 
at  once  the  most  arbitrary  despotism  and  the  most  barbarous  state 
hi  Europe  ?  And  what  is  its  effect,  but  industry  comparatively 
profitless,  and  sedition,  not  occasional  and  partial,  but  chronic  and 
pervading  the  empire.  I  speak  of  slavery  not  in  the  language  of 
fancy,  but  in  the  language  of  philosophy.  Montesquieu  remarked 
upon  the  proposition  to  introduce  slavery  into  France,  that  the 
demand  for  slavery  was  the  demand  of  luxury  and  corruption, 


FREEDOM,  NATIONAL ;  SLAVERY,  SECTIONAL.  77 

and  not  the  demand  of  patriotism.  Of  all  slavery,  African  slavery 
is  the  worst,  for  it  combines  practically  the  features  of  what  is 
distinguished  as  real  slavery  or  serfdom  with  the  personal  slavery 
known  in  the  oriental  world.  Its  domestic  features  lead  to  vice, 
while  its  political  features  render  it  injurious  and  dangerous  to  the 
state. 

I  cannot  stop  to  debate  long  with  those  who  maintain  that 
slavery  is  itself  practically  economical  and  humane.  I  might 
be  content  with  saying  that  there  are  some  axioms  in  political 
science  that  a  statesman  or  a  founder  of  states  may  adopt,  espe- 
cially in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  that  among  those 
axioms  are  these :  That  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  have 
inalienable  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  choice  of  pursuits  of 
happiness ;  that  knowledge  promotes  virtue,  and  righteousness 
exalteth  a  nation ;  that  freedom  is  preferable  to  slavery,  and 
that  democratic  governments,  where  they  can  be  maintained  by 
acquiescence,  without  force,  are  preferable  to  institutions  exer- 
cising arbitrary  and  irresponsible  power. 

It  remains  only  to  remark  that  our  own  experience  has  proved 
the  dangerous  influence  and  tendency  of  slavery.  All  our  appre- 
hensions of  dangers,  present  and  future,  begin  and  end  with 
slavery.  If  slavery,  limited  as  it  yet  is,  now  threatens  to  subvert 
the  Constitution,  how  can  we,  as  wise  and  prudent  statesmen, 
enlarge  its  boundaries  and  increase  its  influence,  and  thus  increase 
already  impending  dangers  ?  Whether,  then,  I  regard  merely 
the  welfare  of  the  future  inhabitants  of  the  new  territories,  or  the 
security  and  welfare  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States,  or 
the  welfare  of  the  whole  family  of  mankind,  I  cannot  consent  to 
introduce  slavery  into  any  part  of  this  continent  which  is  now 
exempt  from  what  seems  to  me  so  great  an  evil.  These  are  my 
reasons  for  declining  to  compromise  the  question  relating  to 
slavery  as  a  condition  of  the  admission  of  California. 

In  acting  upon  an  occasion  so  grave  as  this,  a  respectful  consid- 
eration is  due  to  the  arguments,  founded  on  extraneous  considera- 
tions, of  senators  who  commend  a  course  different  from  that  which 
I  have  preferred.  The  first  of  these  arguments  is,  that  Con- 
gress has  no  power  to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery  within 
the  territories. 

Sir,  Congress  may  admit  new  states  ;  and  since  Congress  may 
admit,  it  follows  that  Congress  may  reject  new  states.  The  discretion 

VOL.  1—6. 


78  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  Congress  in  admitting  is  absolute,  except  that,  when  admitted, 
the  state  must  be  a  republican  state,  and  must  be  a  STATE  :  that  is, 
it  shall  have  the  constitutional  form  and  powers  of  a  state.  But 
the  greater  includes  the  less,  and  therefore  Congress  may  impose 
conditions  of  admission  not  inconsistent  with  those  fundamental 
powers  and  forms.  Boundaries  are  such.  The  reservation  of  the 
public  domain  is  such.  The  right  to  divide  is  such.  The  ordinance 
excluding  slavery  is  such  a  condition.  The  organization  of  a  terri- 
tory is  ancillary  or  preliminary ;  it  is  the  inchoate,  the  initiative 
act  of  admission,  and  is  performed  under  the  clause  granting 
the  powers  necessary  to  execute  the  express  powers  of  the  Consti- 
tution. 

This  power  comes  from  the  treaty-making  power  also,  and  I  think 
it  well  traced  to  the  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations 
concerning  the  public  domain.  But  this  question  is  not  a  material 
one  now  ;  the  power  is  here  to  be  exercised.  The  question  now  is, 
ITow  is  it  to  be  exercised  ?  not  whether  we  shall  exercise  it  at  all, 
however  derived.  And  the  right  to  regulate  property,  to  admin- 
ister justice  in  regard  to  property ,  is  assumed  in  every  territorial 
charter.  If  we  have  the  power  to  legislate  concerning  property, 
we  have  the  power  to  legislate  concerning  personal  rights.  Free- 
dom is  a  personal  right ;  and  Congress,  being  the  supreme  legisla- 
ture, has  the  same  right  in  regard  to  property  and  personal  rights 
in  territories  that  the  states  would  have  if  organized. 

The  next  of  this  class  of  arguments  is,  that  the  inhibition  of 
slavery  in  the  new  territories  is  unnecessary  •  and  when  I  come  to 
this  question,  I  encounter  the  loss  of  many  who  lead  in  favor  of 
admitting  California.  I  had  hoped,  some  time  ago,  that  upon  the 
vastly  important  question  of  inhibiting  slavery  in  the  new  territories, 
we  should  have  had  the  aid  especially  of  the  distinguished  senator 
from  Missouri,  [Mr.  BENTON,]  and  when  he  announced  his  opposi- 
tion to  that  measure  I  was  induced  to  exclaim — 

Cur  in  theatrum,  Cato  severe,  venisti  I 
An  ideo,  tantum,  veneras  ut  exires  ? 

But,  sir,  I  have  no  right  to  complain.  The  senator  is  crowning 
a  life  of  eminent  public  service  by  a  heroic  and  magnanimous 
act  in  bringing  California  into  the  Union.  Grateful  to  him  for 
this,  I  leave  it  to  himself  to  determine  how  far  considerations  of 
human  freedom  shall  govern  the  course  which  he  thinks  proper  to 
pursue. 


THE    PROVISO.  79 

The  argument  is,  that  the  Proviso  is  unnecessary.  I  answer, 
then  there  can  be  no  error  in  insisting  upon  it.  But  why  is  it 
unnecessary  ?  It  is  said,  first,  by  reason  of  climate.  I  answer,  if 
this  be  so,  why  do  not  the  representatives  of  the  slave  states  con- 
cede the  Proviso  ?  They  deny  that  the  climate  prevents  the  intro- 
duction of  slavery.  Then  I  will  leave  nothing  to  a  contingency. 
But,  in  truth,  I  think  the  weight  of  argument  is  against  the 
proposition.  Is  there  any  climate  where  slavery  has  not  existed  ? 
It  has  prevailed  all  over  Europe,  from  sunny  Italy  to  bleak  Eng- 
land, and  is  existing  now,  stronger  than  in  any  other  land,  in  ice- 
bound Russia.  But  it  will  be  replied,  that  this  is  not  African 
slavery.  I  rejoin,  that  only  makes  the  case  the  stronger.  If  this 
vigorous  Saxon  race  of  ours  was  reduced  to  slavery  while  it 
retained  the  courage  of  semi-barbarism  in  its  own  high  northern 
latitude,  what  security  does  climate  afford  against  the  transplan- 
tation of  the  more  gentle,  more  docile,  and  already  enslaved  and 
debased  African  to  the  genial  climate  of  New  Mexico  and  Eastern 
California  ? 

Sir,  there  is  no  climate  uncongenial  to  slavery.  It  is  true  it  is 
less  productive  than  free  labor  in  many  northern  countries.  But 
so  it  is  less  productive  than  free  white  labor  in  even  tropical 
climates.  Labor  is  in  quick  demand  in  all  new  countries.  Slave 
labor  is  cheaper  than  free  labor,  and  it  would  go  first  into  new 
regions ;  and  wherever  it  goes  it  brings  labor  into  dishonor,  and 
therefore  free  white  labor  avoids  competition  with  it.  Sir,  I  might 
rely  on  climate  if  I  had  not  been  born  in  a  land  where  slavery 
existed — and  this  land  was  all  of  it  north  of  the  fortieth  parallel 
of  latitude ;  and  if  I  did  not  know  the  struggle  it  has  cost,  and 
which  is  yet  going  on,  to  get  complete  relief  from  the  institution 
and  its  baleful  consequences.  I  desire  to  propound  this  question 
to  those  who  are  now  in  favor  of  dispensing  with  the  "VVilmot 
Proviso :  Was  the  ordinance  of  1787  necessary  or  not  ?  Necessary, 
we  all  agree.  It  has  received  too  many  elaborate  eulogiums  to  be 
now  decried  as  an  idle  and  superfluous  thing.  And  yet  that  ordi- 
nance extended  the  inhibition  of  slavery  from  the  thirty-seventh 
to  the  fortieth  parallel  of  north  latitude.  And  now  we  are  told 
that  the  inhibition  named  is  unnecessary  anywhere  north  of 
36°  30' !  We  are  told  that  we  may  rely  upon  the  laws  of  God, 
which  prohibit  slave  labor  north  of  that  line,  and  that  it  is  absurd 
to  re-enact  the  laws  of  God.  Sir,  there  is  no  human  enactment 


80  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

which  is  just  that  is  not  a  re-enactment  of  the  law  of  God.  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  constitutions  of  all  the 
states  are  full  of  such  re-enactments.  Wherever  I  find  a  law  of 
God  or  a  law  of  nature  disregarded,  or  in  danger  of  being  disre- 
garded, there  I  shall  vote  to  re-affirm  it,  with  all  the  sanction  of 
the  civil  authority.  But  I  find  no  authority  for  the  position  that 
climate  prevents  slavery  anywhere.  It  is  the  indolence  of  mankind 
in  any  climate,  and  not  any  natural  necessity,  that  introduces 
slavery  in  any  climate. 

I  shall  dwell  only  very  briefly  on  the  argument  derived  from 
the  Mexican  laws.  The  proposition,  that  those  laws  must  remain 
in  force  until  altered  by  laws  of  our  own,  is  satisfactory ;  and  so 
is  the  proposition  that  those  Mexican  laws  abolished  and  continue 
to  prohibit  slavery.  And  still  I  deem  an  enactment  by  ourselves 
wise,  and  even  necessary.  Both  of  the  propositions  I  have  stated 
are  denied  with  just  as  much  confidence  by  southern  statesmen  and 
jurists  as  they  are  affirmed  by  those  of  the  free  states.  The  popu- 
lation of  the  new  territories  is  rapidly  becoming  an  American  one, 
to  whom  the  Mexican  code  will  seem  a  foreign  one,  entitled  to  lit- 
tle deference  or  obedience. 

Slavery  has  never  obtained  anywhere  by  express  legislative  au- 
thority, but  always  by  trampling  down  laws  higher  than  any  mere 
municipal  laws — the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nations.  There  can  be 
no  oppression  in  superadding  the  sanction  of  Congress  to  the  au- 
thority which  is  so  weak  and  so  vehemently  questioned.  And 
there  is  some  possibility,  if  not  probability,  that  the  institution 
may  obtain  a  foothold  surreptitiously,  if  it  shall  not  be  absolutely 
forbidden  by  our  own  authority. 

AVhat  is  insisted  upon,  therefore,  is  not  a  mere  abstraction  or  a 
mere  sentiment,  as  is  contended  by  those  who  waive  the  proviso. 
And  what  is  conclusive  on  the  subject  is,  that  it  is  conceded  on  all 
hands  that  the  effect  of  insisting  on  it  is  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of 
slavery  into  the  region  to  which  it  is  proposed  to  apply  it. 

It  is  insisted  that  the  diffusion  of  slavery  will  not  increase  its 
evils.  The  argument  seems  to  me  merely  specious,  and  quite  un- 
sound. I  desire  to  propose  one  or  two  questions  in  reply  to  it.  Is 
slavery  stronger  or  weaker  in  these  United  States,  from  its  diffu- 
sion into  Missouri  ?  Is  slavery  weaker  or  stronger  in  these  United 
States,  from  the  exclusion  of  it  from  the  northwest  territory  ? 
The  answers  to  these  questions  will  settle  the  whole  controversy. 


THE  UNION.  81 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  great  and  all-absorbing  argument  that 
the  Union  is  in  danger  of  being  dissolved,  and  that  it  can  only  be 
saved  by  compromise.  I  do  not  know  what  I  would  not  do  to  save 
the  Union  ;  and  therefore  I  shall  bestow  upon  this  subject  a  very 
deliberate  consideration. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  entire  delegation  from  the 
slave  states,  although  they  differ  in  regard  to  the  details  of  the 
compromise  proposed,  and  perhaps  in  regard  to  the  exact  circum- 
stances of  the  crisis,  seem  to  concur  in  this  momentous  warning. 
Nor  do  I  doubt  at  all  the  patriotic  devotion  to  the  Union  which  is 
expressed  by  those  from  whom  this  warning  proceeds.  And  yet, 
sir,  although  such  warnings  have  been  uttered  with  impassioned 
solemnity  in  my  hearing  every  day  for  near  three  months,  my  con- 
fidence in  the  Union  remains  unshaken.  I  think  they  are  to  be 
received  with  no  inconsiderable  distrust,  because  they  are  uttered 
under  the  influence  of  a  controlling  interest  to  be  secured,  a  para- 
mount object  to  be  gained  ;  and  that  is  an  equilibrium  of  power 
in  the  republic.  I  think  they  are  to  be  received  with  even  more 
distrust,  because,  with  the  most  profound  respect,  they  are  uttered 
under  an  obviously  high  excitement.  Nor  is  that  excitement  an 
unnatural  one.  It  is  a  law  of  our  nature  that  the  passions  disturb 
the  reason  and  judgment  just  in  proportion  to  the  importance  of 
the  occasion,  and  the  consequent  necessity  for  calmness  and  can- 
dor. I  think  they  are  to  be  distrusted,  because  there  is  a  diversity 
of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  operation  of  this  excite- 
ment. The  senators  from  some  states  say  that  it  has  brought  all 
parties  in  their  own  region  into  unanimity.  The  honorable  sena- 
tor from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CLAY]  says  that  the  danger  lies  in  the 
violence  of  party  spirit,  and  refers  us  for  proof  to  the  difficulties 
which  attended  the  organization  of  the  house  of  representatives. 

Sir,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  is  not  the  fierce  conflict  of 
parties  that  we  are  seeing  and  hearing ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  the  agony  of  distracted  parties — a  convulsion  resulting  from  the 
too  narrow  foundations  of  both  the  great  parties,  and  of  all  parties 
• — foundations  laid  in  compromises  of  natural  justice  and  of  human 
liberty.  A  question,  a  moral  question,  transcending  the  too  narrow 
creeds  of  parties,  has  arisen  ;  the  public  conscience  expands  with 
it,  and  the  green  withes  of  party  associations  give  way  and  break, 
and  fall  off  from  it.  No,  sir ;  it  is  not  the  state  that  is  dying  of 
the  fever  of  party  spirit.  It  is  merely  a  paralysis  of  parties,  pre- 


82  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

monitory  however  of  their  restoration,  with  new  elements  of  health 
and  vigor  to  be  imbibed  from  that  spirit  of  the  age  which  is  so 
justly  called  Progress. 

Nor  is  the  evil  that  of  unlicensed,  irregular,  and  turbulent  fac- 
tion. We  are  told  that  twenty  legislatures  are  in  session,  burning 
like  furnaces,  heating  and  inflaming  the  popular  passions.  But 
these  twenty  legislatures  are  constitutional  furnaces.  They  are 
performing  their  customary  functions,  imparting  healthful  heat 
and  vitality  while  within  their  constitutional  jurisdiction.  If  they 
rage  beyond  its  limits,  the  popular  passions  of  this  country  are 
not  at  all,  I  think,  in  danger  of  being  inflamed  to  excess.  No, 
sir ;  let  none  of  these  fires  be  extinguished.  Forever  let  them 
burn  and  blaze.  They  are  neither  ominous  meteors  nor  baleful 
comets,  but  planets ;  and  bright  and  intense  as  their  heat  may  be, 
it  is  their  native  temperature,  and  they  must  still  obey  the  law 
which,  by  attraction  toward  this  solar  centre,  holds  them  in  their 
spheres. 

I  see  nothing  of  that  conflict  between  the  southern  and  northern 
states,  or  between  their  representative  bodies,  which  seems  to  be 
on  all  sides  of  me  assumed.  Not  a  word  of  menace,  not  a  word 
of  anger,  not  an  intemperate  word,  has  been  uttered  in  the  north- 
ern legislatures.  They  firmly  but  calmly  assert  their  convictions ; 
but  at  the  same  time  they  assert  their  unqualified  consent  to 
submit  to  the  common  arbiter,  and  for  weal  or  wo  abide  the  for- 
tunes of  the  Union. 

What  if  there  be  less  of  moderation  in  the  legislatures  of  the 
south  ?  It  only  indicates  on  which  side  the  balance  is  inclining, 
and  that  the  decision  of  the  momentous  question  is  near  at  hand. 
I  agree  with  those  who  say  that  there  can  be  no  peaceful  dissolu- 
tion— no  dissolution  of  the  Union  by  the  secession  of  states ;  but 
that  disunion,  dissolution,  happen  when  it  may,  will  and  must  be 
revolution.  I  discover  no  omens  of  revolution.  The  predictions 
of  the  political  astrologers  do  not  agree  as  to  the  time  or  manner 
in  which  it  is  to  occur.  According  to  the  authority  of  the  hon- 
orable senator  from  Alabama,  [Mr.  CLEMESTS,]  the  event  has 
already  happened,  and  the  Union  is  now  in  ruins.  According 
the  honorable  and  distinguished  senator  from  South  Carolina, 
[Mr.  CALHOUST,]  it  is  not  to  be  immediate,  but  to  be  developed  by 
time. 

What  are  the  omens  to  which  our  attention  is  directed  ?     I  see 


DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  UNION.  83 

nothing  but  a  broad  difference  of  opinion  here,  and  the  excitement 
consequent  upon  it. 

I  have  observed  that  revolutions  which  begin  in  the  palace 
seldom  go  beyond  the  palace  walls,  and  they  affect  only  the 
dynasty  which  reigns  there.  This  revolution,  if  I  understand  it, 
began  in  this  Senate  chamber  a  year  ago,  when  the  representatives 
from  the  southern  states  assembled  here  and  addressed  their  con- 
stituents on  what  were  called  the  aggressions  of  the  norther]  i 
states.  No  revolution  was  designed  at  that  time,  and  all  that  has 
happened  since  is  the  return  to  Congress  of  legislative  resolutions, 
which  seem  to  me  to  be  only  conventional  responses  to  the  address 
which  emanated  from  the  capitol. 

Sir,  in  any  condition  of  society  there  can  be  no  revolution  with- 
out a  cause,  an  adequate  cause.  What  cause  exists  here  ?  We 
are  admitting  a  new  state  ;  but  there  is  nothing  new '  in  that :  we 
have  already  admitted  seventeen  before.  But  it  is  said  that  the 
slave  states  are  in  danger  of  losing  political  power  by  the  admis- 
sion of  the  new  state.  Well,  sir,  is  there  anything  new  in  that  ? 
The  slave  states  have  always  been  losing  political  power,  and  they 
always  will  be  while  they  have  any  to  lose.  At  first,  twelve  of 
the  thirteen  states  were  slave  states ;  now  only  fifteen  out  of  the 
thirty  are  slaves  states.  Moreover,  the  change  is  constitutionally 
made,  and  the  government  was  constructed  so  as  to  permit  changes 
of  the  balance  of  power,  in  obedience  to  changes  of  the  forces  of 
the  body  politic.  Danton  used  to  say,  "  It's  all  well  while  the 
people  cry  Danton  and  Robespierre ;  but  wo  for  me  if  ever  the 
people  learn  to  say,  Robespierre  and  Danton !"  That  is  all  of  it, 
sir.  The  people  have  been  accustomed  to  say,  "  the  South  and  the 
North  ;"  they  are  only  beginning  now  to  sav,  "  the  North  and  the 
South." 

Sir,  those  who  would  alarm  us  with  the  terrors  of  revolution 
have  not  well  considered  the  structure  of  this  government,  and 
the  organization  of  its  forces.  It  is  a  democracy  of  property  and 
persons,  with  a  fair  approximation  towards  universal  education, 
and  operating  by  means  of  universal  suffrage.  The  constituent 
members  of  this  democracy  are  the  only  persons  who  could  sub- 
vert it ;  and  they  are  not  the  citizens  of  a  metropolis  like  Paris, 
or  of  a  region  subjected  to  the  influences  of  a  metropolis  like 
France  ;  but  they  are  husbandmen,  dispersed  over  this  broad  land, 
on  the  mountain  and  on  the  plain,  and  on  the  prairie,  from  the 


84  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ocean  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  from  the  great  lakes  to  the 
gulf ;  and  this  people  are  now,  while  we  are  discussing  their  ima- 
ginary danger,  at  peace  and  in  their  happy  homes,  as  unconcerned 
and  uninformed  of  their  peril  as  they  are  of  events  occurring  in 
the  moon.  Nor  have  the  alarmists  made  due  allowance  in  their 
calculations  for  the  influence  of  conservative  reaction,  strong  in 
any  government,  and  irresistible  in  a  rural  republic,  operating  by 
universal  suffrage.  That  principle  of  reaction  is  due  to  the  force 
of  the  habits  of  acquiescence  and  loyalty  among  the  people.  Xo 
man  better  understood  this  principle  than  MACHIAVELLI,  who  has 
told  us,  in  regard  to  factions,  that  "  no  safe  reliance  can  be  placed 
in  the  force  of  nature  and  the  bravery  of  words,  except  it  be  cor- 
roborated by  custom."  Do  the  alarmists  remember  that  this  govern- 
ment has  stood  sixty  years  already  without  exacting  one  drop  of 
blood  \ — that  this  government  has  stood  sixty  years,  and  yet 
treason  is  an  obsolete  crime  ?  That  day,  I  trust,  is  far  off  when 
the  fountains  of  popular  contentment  shall  be  broken  up  ;  but, 
whenever  it  shall  come,  it  will  bring  forth  a  higher  illustration 
than  has  ever  yet  been  given  of  the  excellence  of  the  democratic 
system  ;  for  then  it  will  be  seen  how  calmly,  how  firmly,  how 
nobly,  a  great  people  can  act  in  preserving  their  Constitution ; 
whom  "  love  of  country  moveth,  example  teacheth,  company  com- 
forteth,  emulation  quickeneth,  and  glory  exalteth." 

When  the  founders  of  the  new  republic  of  the  south  come  to 
draw  over  the  face  of  this  empire,  along  or  between  its  parallels 
of  latitude  or  longitude,  their  ominous  lines  of  dismemberment, 
soon  to  be  broadly  and  deeply  shaded  with  fraternal  blood,  they 
may  come  to  the  discovery  then,  if  not  before,  that  the  natural 
and  even  the  political  connections  of  the  region  embraced  forbid 
such  a  partition  ;  that  its  possible  divisions  are  not  northern  and 
southern  at  all,  but  eastern  and  western,  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ; 
and  that  nature  and  commerce  have  allied  indissolubly  for  weal 
and  wo  the  seceders  and  those  from  whom  they  are  to  be  separa- 
ted ;  that  while  they  would  rush  into  a  civil  war  to  restore  an 
imaginary  equilibrium  between  the  northern  states  and  the  south- 
ern states,  a  new  equilibrium  has  taken  its  place,  in  which  all 
those  states  are  on  the  one  side,  and  the  boundless  west  is  on  the 
other. 

Sir,  when  the  founders  of  the  republic  of  the  south  come  to 
draw  those  fearful  lines,  they  will  indicate  what  portions  of  the 


DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  UNION.  85 

continent  are  to  be  broken  off  from  their  connection  with  the 
Atlantic,  through  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  Hudson,  the  Delaware, 
the  Potomac,  and  the  Mississippi ;  what  portion  of  this  people 
are  to  be  denied  the  use  of  the  lakes,  the  railroads,  and  the  canals, 
now  constituting  common  and  customary  avenues  of  travel,  trade, 
and  social  intercourse  ;  what  families  and  kindred  are  to  be  sepa- 
rated, and  converted  into  enemies  ;  and  what  states  are  to  be  the 
scenes  of  perpetual  border  warfare,  aggravated  by  interminable 
horrors  of  servile  insurrection  ?  When  those  portentous  lines  shall 
be  drawn,  they  will  disclose  what  portion  of  this  people  is  to  retain 
the  army  and  the  navy,  and  the  flag  of  so  many  victories  ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  what  portion  of  the  people  is  to  be  subjected 
to  new  and  onerous  imposts,  direct  taxes,  and  forced  loans,  and 
conscriptions,  to  maintain  an  opposing  army,  an  opposing  navy, 
and  the  new  and  hateful  banner  of  sedition.  Then  the  projectors 
of  the  new  republic  of  the  south  will  meet  the  question — and  they 
may  well  prepare  now  to  answer  it — What  is  all  this  for  ?  What 
intolerable  wrong,  what  unfraternal  injustice,  have  rendered  these 
calamities  unavoidable  ?  What  gain  will  this  unnatural  revolution 
bring  to  us  ?  The  answer  will  be  :  All  this  is  done  to  secure  the 
institution  of  African  slavery. 

And  then,  if  not  before,  the  question  will  be  discussed,  What  is 
this  institution  of  slavery,  that  it  should  cause  these  unparalleled 
sacrifices  and  these  disastrous  afflictions  ?  And  this  will  be  the 
answer:  When  the  Spaniards,  few  in  number,  discovered  the 
western  Indies  and  adjacent  continental  America,  they  needed  la- 
bor to  draw  forth  from  its  virgin  stores  some  speedy  return  to  the 
cupidity  of  the  court  and  the  bankers  of  Madrid.  They  enslaved 
the  indolent,  inoffensive,  and  confiding  natives,  who  perished  by 
thousands,  and  even  by  millions,  under  that  new  and  unnatural 
bondage.  A  humane  ecclesiastic  advised  the  substitution  of  Afri- 
cans reduced  to  captivity  in  their  native  wars,  and  a  pious  princess 
adopted  the  suggestion,  with  a  dispensation  from  the  head  of  the 
church,  granted  on  the  ground  of  the  prescriptive  right  of  the 
Christian  to  enslave  the  heathen,  to  effect  his  conversion.  The 
colonists  of  North  America,  innocent  in  their  unconsciousness  of 
wrong,  encouraged  the  slave  traffic,  and  thus  the  labor  of  subduing 
their  territory  devolved  chiefly  upon  the  African  race.  A  happy 
conjuncture  brought  on  an  awakening  of  the  conscience  of  mankind 
to  the  injustice  of  slavery,  simultaneously  with  the  independence 


86  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  the  colonies.  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New 
Hampshire,  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania, 
welcomed  and  embraced  the  spirit  of  universal  emancipation.  Re- 
nouncing luxury,  they  secured  influence  and  empire.  But  the 
states  of  the  south,  misled  by  a  new  and  profitable  culture,  elected 
to  maintain  and  perpetuate  slavery ;  and  thus,  choosing  luxury, 
they  lost  power  and  empire. 

When  this  answer  shall  be  given,  it  will  appear  that  the  ques- 
tion of  dissolving  the  Union  is  a  complex  question ;  that  it  em- 
braces the  fearful  issue  whether  the  Union  shall  stand,  and  slavery, 
under  the  steady,  peaceful  action  of  moral,  social,  and  political 
causes,  be  removed  by  gradual,  voluntary  effort,  and  with  com- 
pensation, or  whether  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved,  and  civil  wars 
ensue,  bringing  on  violent  but  complete  and  immediate  emancipa- 
tion. We  are  now  arrived  at  that  stage  of  our  national  progress 
when  that  crisis  can  be  foreseen,  when  we  must  foresee  it.  It  is 
directly  before  us.  Its  shadow  is  upon  us.  It  darkens  the  legis- 
lative halls,  the  temples  of  worship,  and  the  home  and  the  hearth. 
Every  question,  political,  civil,  or  ecclesiastical,  however  foreign 
to  the  subject  of  slavery,  brings  up  slavery  as  an  incident,  and  the 
incident  supplants  the  principal  question.  We  hear  of  nothing 
but  slavery,  and  we  can  talk  of  nothing  but  slavery.  And  now, 
it  seems  to  me  that  all  our  difficulties,  embarrassments,  and  dan- 
gers, arise,  not  out  of  unlawful  perversions  of  the  question  of  sla- 
very, as  some  suppose,  but  from  the  want  of  moral  courage  to 
meet  this  question  of  emancipation  as  we  ought.  Consequently, 
we  hear  on  one  side  demands — absurd,  indeed,  but  yet  unceasing 
— for  an  immediate  and  unconditional  abolition  of  slavery — as  if 
any  power,  except  the  people  of  the  slave  states,  could  abolish  it, 
and  as  if  they  could  be  moved  to  abolish  it  by  merely  sounding 
the  trumpet  loudly  and  proclaiming  emancipation,  while  the 
institution  is  interwoven  with  all  their  social  and  political  interests, 
constitutions,  and  customs. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  statesmen  say  that  "  slavery  has  always 
existed,  and,  for  aught  they  know  or  can  do,  it  always  must  exist. 
God  permitted  it,  and  he  alone  can  indicate  the  way  to  remove  it." 
As  if  the  Supreme  Creator,  after  giving  us  the  instructions  of  his 
providence  and  revelation  for  the  illumination  of  our  minds  and 
consciences,  did  not  leave  us  in  all  human  transactions,  with  due 


EMANCIPATION.  87 

invocations  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  seek  out  his  will  and  execute  it 
for  ourselves. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  of  my  separation  from  both  of  these 
parties.  I  feel  assured  that  slavery  must  give  way,  and  will  give 
way,  to  the  salutary  instructions  of  economy,  and  to  the  ripening 
influences  of  humanity ;  that  emancipation  is  inevitable,  and  is 
near ;  that  it  may  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  and  that  whether  it 
shall  be  peaceful  or  violent,  depends  upon  the  question  whether  it 
be  hastened  or  hindered ;  that  all  measures  which  fortify  slavery 
or  extend  it,  tend  to  the  consummation  of  violence  ;  all  that  check 
its  extension  and  abate  its  strength,  tend  to  its  peaceful  extirpation. 
But  I  will  adopt  none  but  lawful,  constitutional,  and  peaceful 
means,  to  secure  even  that  end ;  and  none  such  can  I  or  will  I 
forego.  Nor  do  I  know  any  important  or  responsible  political  body 
that  proposes  to  do  more  than  this.  No  free  state  claims  to  extend 
its  legislation  into  a  slave  state.  None  claims  that  Congress  shall 
usurp  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  slave  states.  None  claims 
that  any  violent,  unconstitutional,  or  unlawful  measure  shall  be 
embraced.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  offer  no  scheme  or  plan 
for  the  adoption  of  the  slave  states,  with  the  assent  and  co-opera- 
tion of  Congress,  it  is  only  because  the  slave  states  are  unwilling 
as  yet  to  receive  such  suggestions,  or  even  to  entertain  the  question 
of  emancipation  in  any  form. 

But,  sir,  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  say  that,  while  I  cannot 
agree  with  the  honorable  senator  from  Massachusetts  in  proposing 
to  devote  eighty  millions  of  dollars  to  remove  the  free  colored 
population  from  the  slave  states,  and  thus,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
fortify  slavery,  there  is  no  reasonable  limit  to  which  I  am  not  will- 
ing to  go  in  applying  the  national  treasures  to  effect  the  peaceful, 
voluntary  removal  of  slavery  itself. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  there  is  not  now,  and  there 
is  not  likely  to  occur  any  adequate  cause  for  revolution  in  regard 
to  slavery.  But  you  reply  that,  nevertheless,  you  must  have  gua- 
ranties ;  and  the  first  one  is  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  'from 
labor.  That  guaranty  you  cannot  have,  as  I  have  already  shown, 
because  you  cannot  roll  back  the  tide  of  social  progress,  lou 
must  be  content  with  what  you  have.  If  you  wage  war  against 
us,  you  can,  at  most,  only  conquer  us,  and  then  all  you  can  get 
will  be  a  treaty,  and  that  you  have  already. 

But  you  insist  on  a  guaranty  against  the  abolition  of  slavery  ia 


88  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

the  District  of  Columbia,  or  war.  Well,  when  you  shall  have 
declared  war  against  us,  what  shall  hinder  us  from  immediately 
decreeing  that  slavery  shall  cease  within  the  national  capital  ? 

You  say  that  you  will  not  submit  to  the  exclusion  of  slaves  from 
the  new  territories.  "What  will  you  gain  by  resistance  ?  Liberty 
follows  the  sword,  although  her  sway  is  one  of  peace  and  benefi- 
cence. Can  you  propagate  slavery  then  by  the  sword  ? 

You  insist  that  you  cannot  submit  to  the  freedom  with  which 
slavery  is  discussed  in  the  free  states.  "Will  war — a  war  for  slavery 
— arrest  or  even  moderate  that  discussion  ?  No,  sir ;  that  discus- 
sion will  not  cease ;  war  will  only  inflame  it  to  a  greater  height. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  eternal  conflict  between  truth  and  error — between 
mind  and  physical  force — the  conflict  of  man  against  the  obstacles 
which  oppose  his  way  to  an  ultimate  and  glorious  destiny.  It  will 
go  on  until  you  shall  terminate  it  in  the  only  way  in  which  any 
state  or  nation  has  ever  terminated  it — by  yielding  to  it — yielding 
in  your  own  time,  and  in  your  own  manner,  indeed,  but  neverthe- 
less yielding  to  the  progress  of  emancipation.  You  will  do  this, 
sooner  or  later,  whatever  may  be  your  opinion  now;  because 
nations  which  were  prudent  and  humane,  and  wise  as  you  are,  have 
done  so  already. 

Sir,  the  slave  states  have  no  reason  to  fear  that  this  inevitable 
change  will  go  too  far  or  too  fast  for  their  safety  or  welfare.  It 
cannot  well  go  too  fast  or  too  far,  if  the  only  alternative  is  a  war 
of  races. 

But  it  cannot  go  too  fast.  Slavery  has  a  reliable  and  accommo- 
dating ally  in  a  party  in  the  free  states,  which,  though  it  claims 
to  be,  and  doubtless  is  in  many  respects,  a  party  of  progress,  finds 
its  sole  security  for  its  political  power  in  the  support  and  aid  of 
slavery  in  the  slave  states.  Of  course,  I  do  not  include  in  that 
party  those  who  are  now  co-operating  in  maintaining  the  cause  of 
freedom  against  slavery.  I  am  not  of  that  party  of  progress  which 
in  the  north  thus  lends  its  support  to  slavery.  But  it  is  only  just 
and  candid  that  I  should  bear  witness  to  its  fidelity  to  the  interests 
of  slavery. 

Slavery  has,  moreover,  a  more  natural  alliance  with  the  aris- 
tocracy of  the  north  and  with  the  aristocracy  of  Europe.  So  long 
as  slavery  shall  possess  the  cotton-fields,  the  sugar-fields,  and  the 
rice-fields  of  the  world,  so  long  will  commerce  and  capital  yield  it 
toleration  and  sympathy.  Emancipation  is  a  democratic  revolu- 


THE  UNION.  89 

tion.  It  is  capital  that  arrests  all  democratic  revolutions.  It  was 
capital  that,  so  recently,  in  a  single  year,  rolled  back  the  tide  of 
revolution  from  the  base  of  the  Carpathian  mountains,  across  the 
Danube  and  the  Rhine,  into  the  streets  of  Paris.  It  is  capital  that 
is  rapidly  rolling  back  the  throne  of  Napoleon  into  the  chambers 
of  the  Tuilleries. 

Slavery  has  a  guaranty  still  stronger  than  these  in  the  preju- 
dices of  caste  and  color,  which  induce  even  large  majorities  in  all 
the  free  states  to  regard  sympathy  with  the  slave  as  an  act  of 
unmanly  humiliation  and  self-abasement,  although  philosophy 
meekly  expresses  her  distrust  of  the  asserted  natural  superiority 
of  the  white  race,  and  confidently  denies  that  such  a  superiority, 
if  justly  claimed,  could  give  a  title  to  oppression. 

There  remains  one  more  guaranty' — one  that  has  seldom  failed 
you,  and  will  seldom  fail  you  hereafter.  'New  states  cling  in  closer 
alliance  than  older  ones  to  the  federal  power.  The  concentration 
of  the  slave  power  enables  you  for  long  periods  to  control  the  fed- 
eral government  with  the  aid  of  the  new  states.  I  do  not  know 
the  sentiments  of  the  representatives  of  California;  but,  my  word 
for  it,  if  they  should  be  admitted  on  this  floor  to-day,  against  your 
most  obstinate  opposition,  they  would,  on  all  questions  really  affect- 
ing your  interests,  be  found  at  your  side. 

With  these  alliances  to  break  the  force  of  emancipation,  there 
will  be  no  disunion  and  no  secession.  I  do  not  say  that  there  may 
not  be  disturbance,  though  I  do  not  apprehend  even  that.  Abso- 
lute regularity  and  order  in  administration  have  not  yet  been  es- 
tablished in  any  government,  and  unbroken  popular  tranquillity 
kas  not  yet  been  attained  in  even  the  most  advanced  condition  of 
human  society.  The  machinery  of  our  system  is  necessarily  com- 
plex. A  pivot  may  drop  out  here,  a  lever  may  be  displaced  there, 
a  wheel  may  fall  out  of  gearing  elsewhere,  but  the  machinery  will 
soon  recover  its  regularity,  and  move  on  just  as  before,  with  even 
better  adaptation  and  adjustment  to  overcome  new  obstructions. 

There  are  many  well-disposed  persons  who  are  alarmed  at  the 
occurrence  of  any  such  disturbance.  The  failure  of  a  legislative 
body  to  organize  is  to  their  apprehension  a  fearful  omen,  and  an 
extra-constitutional  assemblage  to  consult  upon  public  affairs  is 
with  them  cause  for  desperation.  Even  senators  speak  of  the  Union 
as  if  it  existed  only  by  consent,  and,  as  it  seems  to  be  implied,  by 
the  assent  of  the  legislatures  of  the  states.  On  the  contrary,  the 


90  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

union  was  not  founded  in  voluntary  choice,  nor  does  it  exist  by 
voluntary  consent. 

A  union  was  proposed  to  the  colonies  by  Franklin  and  others, 
in  1754 ;  but  such  was  their  aversion  to  an  abridgment  of  their 
own  importance,  respectively,  that  it  was  rejected  even  under  the 
pressure  of  a  disastrous  invasion  by  France. 

A  union  of  choice  was  proposed  to  the  colonies  in  1775  ;  but  so 
strong  was  their  opposition,  that  they  went  through  the  war  of  in- 
dependence without  having  established  more  than  a  mere  council 
of  consultation. 

But  with  independence  came  enlarged  interests  of  agriculture — 
absolutely  new  interests  of  manufactures — interests  of  commerce, 
of  fisheries,  of  navigation,  of  a  common  domain,  of  common  debts, 
of  common  revenues  and  taxation,  of  the  administration  of  justice, 
of  public  defence,  of  public  honor ;  in  short,  interests  of  common 
nationality  and  sovereignty — interests  which  at  last  compelled  the 
adoption  of  a  more  perfect  union — a  National  Government. 

The  genius,  talents,  and  learning  of  Hamilton,  of  Jay,  and  of  Mad- 
ison, surpassing  perhaps  the  intellectual  power  ever  exerted  before 
for  the  establishment  of  a  government,  combined  with  the  serene 
but  mighty  influence  of  Washington,  were  only  sufficient  to  secure 
the  reluctant  adoption  of  the  Constitution  that  is  now  the  object 
of  all  our  affections  and  of  the  hopes  of  mankind.  No  wonder 
that  the  conflicts  in  which  that  Constitution  was  born,  and  the  al- 
most desponding  solemnity  of  Washington,  in  his  farewell  address, 
impressed  his  countrymen  and  mankind  with  a  profound  distrust 
of  its  perpetuity !  No  wonder  that  while  the  murmurs  of  that 
day  are  yet  ringing  in  our  ears,  we  cherish  that  distrust,  with  pious 
reverence,  as  a  national  and  patriotic  sentiment ! 

But  it  is  time  to  prevent  the  abuses  of  that  sentiment.  It  is  time 
to  shake  oft*  that  fear,  for  fear  is  always  weakness.  It  is  time  to 
remember  that  government,  even  when  it  arises  by  chance  or  ac- 
cident, and  is  administered  capriciously  and  oppressively,  is  ever 
the  strongest  of  all  human  institutions,  surviving  many  social  and 
ecclesiastical  changes  and  convulsions ;  and  that  this  Constitution 
of  ours  has  all  the  inherent  strength  common  to  governments  in 
general,  and  added  to  them  has  also  the  solidity  and  firmness  de- 
rived from  broader  and  deeper  foundations  in  national  justice,  and 
a  better  civil  adaptation  to  promote  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 
mankind. 


THE  UNION.  91 

The  Union,  the  creature  of  necessities,  physical,  moral,  social, 
and  political,  endures  by  virtue  of  the  same  necessities ;  and  these 
necessities  are  stronger  than  when  it  was  produced — stronger  by 
the  greater  amplitude  of  territory  now  covered  by  it — stronger  by 
the  sixfold  increase  of  the  society  living  under  its  beneficent  pro- 
tection— stronger  by  the  augmentation  ten  thousand  times  of  the 
fields,  the  workshops,  the  mines,  and  the  ships,  of  that  society ;  of 
its  productions  of  the  sea,  of  the  plow,  of  the  loom,  and  of  the  anvil, 
in  their  constant  circle  of  internal  and  international  exchange — 
stronger  in  the  long  rivers  penetrating  regions  before  unknown — 
stronger  in  all  the  artificial  roads,  canals,  and  other  channels  and 
avenues  essential  not  only  to  trade  but  to  defence — stronger  in 
steam  navigation,  in  steam  locomotion  on  the  land,  and  in  tele- 
graph communications,  unknown  when  the  Constitution  was  adopt- 
ed— stronger  in  the  freedom  and  in  the  growing  empire  of  the 
seas — stronger  in  the  element  of  national  honor  in  all  lands,  and 
stronger  than  all  in  the  now  settled  habits  of  veneration  and  affec- 
tion for  institutions  so  stupendous  and  so  useful. 

The  Union,  then,  is,  not  because  merely  that  men  choose  that 
it  shall  be,  but  because  some  government  must  exist  here,  and 
no  other  government  than  this  can.  If  it  could  be  dashed  to 
atoms  by  the  whirlwind,  the  lightning,  or  the  earthquake,  to-day, 
it  would  rise  again  in  all  its  just  and  magnificent  proportions 
to-morrow.  This  nation  is  a  globe,  still  accumulating  upon  accu- 
mulation, not  a  dissolving  sphere. 

I  have  heard  somewhat  here,  and  almost  for  the  first  time  in 
my  life,  of  divided  allegiance — of  allegiance  to  the  south  and  to 
the  Union — of  allegiance  to  states  severally  and  to  the  Union. 
Sir,  if  sympathies  with  state  emulation  and  pride  of  achieve- 
ment could  be  allowed  to  raise  up  another  sovereign  to  divide 
the  allegiance  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  I  might  recog- 
nize the  claims  of  the  state  to  which,  by  birth  and  gratitude,  I 
belong — to  the  state  of  Hamilton  and  Jay,  of  Schuyler,  of  the 
Clintons,  and  of  Fulton — the  state  which,  with  less  than  two 
hundred  miles  of  natural  navigation  connected  with  the  ocean, 
has,  by  her  own  enterprise,  secured  to  herself  the  commerce  of 
the  continent,  and  is  steadily  advancing  to  the  command  of  the 
commerce  of  the  world.  But  for  all  this  I  know  only  one 
country  and  one  sovereign — the  United  States  of  America  and 


92  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

the  American  People.  And  such  as  my  allegiance  is,  is  the 
loyalty  of  every  other  citizen  of  the  United  States.  As  I  speak, 
he  will  speak  when  his  time  arrives.  He  knows  no  other  country 
and  no  other  sovereign.  He  has  life,  liberty,  property,  and  pre- 
cious affections,  and  hopes  for  himself  and  for  his  posterity, 
treasured  up  in  the  ark  of  the  Union.  He  knows  as  well  and 
feels  as  strongly  as  I  do,  that  this  government  is  his  own  govern- 
ment ;  that  he  is  a  part  of  it ;  that  it  was  established  for  him,  and 
that  it  is  maintained  by  him  ;  that  it  is  the  only  truly  wise,  just, 
free,  and  equal  government,  that  has  ever  existed  ;  that  no  other 
government  could  be  so  wise,  just,  free,  and  equal ;  and  that  it  is 
safer  and  more  beneficent  than  any  which  time  or  change  could 
bring  into  its  place. 

You  may  tell  me,  sir,  that  although  all  this  may  be  true,  yet 
the  trial  of  faction  has  not  yet  been  made.  Sir,  if  the  trial  of 
faction  has  not  been  made,  it  has  not  been  because  faction  has  not 
always  existed,  and  has  not  always  menaced  a  trial,  but  because 
faction  could  find  no  fulcrum  on  which  to  place  the  lever  to  sub- 
vert the  Union,  as  it  can  find  no  fulcrum  now  ;  and  in  this  is  my 
confidence.  I  would  not  rashly  provoke  the  trial ;  but  I  will  not 
suffer  a  fear,  which  I  have  not,  to  make  me  compromise  one  senti- 
ment, one  principle  of  truth  or  justice,  to  avert  a  danger  that  all 
experience  teaches  me  is  purely  chimerical.  Let,  then,  those  who 
distrust  the  Union  make  compromises  to  save  it.  I  shall  not  im- 
peach their  wisdom,  as  I  certainly  cannot  their  patriotism  ;  but, 
indulging  no  such  apprehensions  myself,  I  shall  vote  for  the 
admission  of  California  directly,  without  conditions,  without  quali- 
fications, and  without  compromise. 

For  the  vindication  of  that  vote,  I  look  not  to  the  verdict  of  the 
passing  hour,  disturbed  as  the  public  mind  now  is  by  conflicting 
interests  and  passions,  but  to  that  period,  happily  not  far  distant, 
when  the  vast  regions  over  which  we  are  now  legislating  shall 
have  received  their  destined  inhabitants. 

While  looking  forward  to  that  day,  its  countless  generations 
seem  to  me  to  be  rising  up  and  passing  in  dim  and  shadowy  re- 
view before  us  ;  and  a  voice  comes  forth  from  their  serried  ranks, 
saying  :  "  Waste  your  treasures  and  your  armies,  if  you  will ;  raze 
your  fortifications  to  the  ground ;  sink  your  navies  into  the  sea ; 
transmit  to  us  even  a  dishonored  name,  if  you  must ;  but  the  soil 


UNIVERSAL  FREEDOM.  93 

you  hold  in  trust  for  us — give  it  to  us  free.  You  found  it  free, 
and  conquered  it  to  extend  a  better  and  surer  freedom  over  it. 
Whatever  choice  you  have  made  for  yourselves,  let  trs  have  no 
partial  freedom ;  let  us  all  be  free ;  let  the  reversion  of  your 
broad  domain  descend  to  us  unincumbered,  and  free  from  the 
calamities  and  from  the  sorrows  of  human  bondage." 


YOL.  1— 7. 


94  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


FREEDOM  IN  THE  NEW  TERRITORIES: 

THE    COMPROMISE    BILL. 

JULY    2,    1850. 

MB.  PRESIDENT  :  If  an  alien  in  our  land  should  chance  to  enter 
here  during  these  high  debates,  he  would  ask  whether  California 
was  a  stranger  and  an  enemy ;  or  an  unbidden  and  unwelcome 
intruder ;  or  a  fugitive,  powerless  and  portionless,  and  therefore 
importunate ;  or  an  oppressor  and  scourge  of  mankind,  and  there- 
fore hateful  and  dangerous.  We  should  be  obliged  to  answer,  No ! 
California  yielded  to  persuasion,  rather  than  to  conquest.  She  has 
renounced  her  lineage,  language,  and  ancient  loyalty.  She  has 
brought  us  to  the  banks  of  streams  which  flow  over  precious  sands, 
and,  at  the  base  of  mountains  which  yield  massive  gold,  she 
delivers  into  our  hand  the  key  that  unlocks  the  long-coveted  trea- 
sures of  the  eastern  world.  California  refuses  only  to  let  us  buy 
and  sell  each  other  within  her  domain,  so  rich  in  all  the  elements 
of  legitimate  commerce.  She  invites  us  to  forego  an  unjust,  inju- 
rious, and  inglorious  dominion  over  a  caste,  and  to  extend  the  sway 
of  peace,  of  arts,  and  of  freedom,  over  nations  beyond  the  seas, 
still  slumbering  under  the  mingled  reign  of  barbarian  superstition 
and  unalleviated  despotism.  The  very  head  and  front  of  her 
offending  hath  this  extent — no  more. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  recommends,  nevertheless, 
that  California  shall  be  admitted  unconditionally,  while  a  commit- 
tee of  the  Senate  insist  on  conditions. 

I  prefer  the  President's  suggestion ;  but  not  merely  because  it  is 
his,  although  I  honor  his  patriotism  and  confide  fully  in  his  wis- 
dom. Nor  do  I  prefer  his  suggestion  out  of  disrespect  to  the 
statesmen  by  whom  it  is  opposed.  My  veneration  for  them  has 


CALIFORNIA.  95 

been  abundantly  manifested  heretofore,  and  needs  no  display  of 
protestations  now.  "We  are  in  a  frame  of  things  disjoint ;  and  in 
the  confusion  resulting  from  a  severance  of  parties  and  new  con- 
junctions of  statesmen,  each  of  us  is  obliged  to  rely  on  the  guid- 
ance of  his  own  judgment  and  conscience. 

I  submit,  sir,  that  the  conditions  are  unreasonable,  injurious,  and 
oppressive,  in  regard  to  CALIFORNIA.  So  far,  as  they  are  found  in 
the  bill  before  us,  they  are,  first,  the  establishment  of  a  territorial 
government  in  New  Mexico,  silent  concerning  slavery ;  second,  the 
establishment  of  a  like  government  in  Utah ;  third,  a  compromise 
of  a  border  dispute  between  New  Mexico  and  Texas.  The  gar- 
ment of  compromise,  thus  quilted  of  various  fabrics  with  artistic 
skill,  is  ingeniously  pieced  out  with  collateral  conditions  in  a  report 
and  two  other  bills  concerning  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  other  national  interests  or 
pretensions  of  slavery. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  California  needs  aid  from  these  condi- 
tions, nor  that  they  can  give  it.  California  is  taxed  for  superfluous 
power  to  draw  the  dependent  measures  into  port,  which  otherwise 
would  founder  and  be  lost.  This  forced  connection  therefore  hin- 
ders, and  tends  to  defeat,  the  admission  of  California. 

Why  is  California  subjected  to  this  embarrassment  ?  Does  she 
come  without  right  ?  She  has  a  treaty.  Is  that  treaty  denied  or 
questioned?  No,  it  is  unanimously  affirmed.  Can  California 
abide  delay  ?  No ;  her  anomalous  condition  not  merely  appeals 
to  our  justice,  but  touches  the  very  virtue  of  compassion  within 
us.  Why,  then,  should  California  be  kept  waiting,  while  we  make 
a  circuit  throughout  the  entire  orbit  of  slavery  ?  California  neither 
brought  the  states  into  confederation,  nor  constructed  the  Consti- 
tution. She  neither  planted  slavery  in  the  slave  states,  nor 
uprooted  it  in  the  free  states.  She  is  not  found  by  the  side  of 
Texas  invading  New  Mexico,  nor  allied  with  New  Mexico  in 
resisting  Texas.  She  is  guiltless  equally  of  buying  and  of  selling, 
of  holding  and  emancipating,  of  reclaiming  and  of  harboring 
slaves  anywhere.  She  has  neither  vote  nor  speech  here,  nor  else- 
where, where  this  angry  strife  can  be  composed.  She  has  severed 
at  a  blow,  and  forever,  the  loose  political  connection — the  only 
connection  she  ever  had — with  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  The  slave 
states  indeed  insist  on  a  right  to  colonize  new  territories  with  a 
caste.  But  all  agree  that  the  community  in  any  such  territory 


96  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

may  establish  a  constitution  prohibiting  caste.  California,  colon- 
ized, has  done  this  already,  and  her  maturity  is  not  well  questioned, 
although  it  has  been  as  rapid  and  bewildering  as  the  passage  of 
a  midsummer  night's  dream.  There  is,  therefore,  neither  com- 
munity nor  connection,  nor  even  congruity  between  the  admission 
of  California  and  the  conditions  demanded.  It  is  binding  Eros  to 
Anteros — confiding  youth  to  querulous  and  wrangling  age — the 
struggling  hind  to  ravening  hounds. 

We  were  told  long  ago  that  California  would  save  time  by  yield- 
ing to  this  most  unjust  combination.  We  have  seen  the  error  of 
that  hope.  We  are  making  the  overland  journey  of  seven  thou- 
sand miles  between  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  when  we  might  have 
crossed  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  on  a  smooth  sea,  in  six  hours. 

We  were  told  that  a  minority  in  another  part  of  the  legislature 
could  prevent  the  admission  of  California,  and  even  bring  the 
Government  to  a  dead  stand.  But  the  Government  must  work  in 
its  own  democratic  and  constitutional  way,  or  must  cease  to  work 
at  all.  No  one  or  more  of  the  states  can  assume  the  responsibility 
of  arresting  its  operation  by  faction.  "  Optimis  auspiciis  ea  geri 
qumpro  reipublicce  salute  gerentur,  quce  contra  retwpiiblicam  fer- 
rentur  contra  auspicia  fcrri" 

I  submit,  now,  that  the  conditions  demanded  are  equally  iinrea- 
sonable,  injurious^  and  oppressive,  in  regard  to  the  other  parties 
affected  by  the  combination,  viz :  TEXAS,  NEW  MEXICO,  UTAH,  and 
the  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA. 

Each  of  these  parties  ought  to  be  regarded  as  asking  only  a  just 
award;  and  Congress  is  to  be  deemed  ready  to  make  a  just  one, 
and  no  other.  Such  an  award  can  be  made  only  by  bestowing  a 
distinct  and  separate  consideration  on  each  claim.  The  same  prin- 
ciple of  dialetic  philosophy  which  forbids  multifariousness  of  issues 
and  confusion  of  parties  in  the  administration  of  justice,  condemns 
incongruous  combinations  in  legislation. 

The  bill  before  us  seems  adapted  to  enable  senators  to  speak  on 
one  side,  and  to  vote  on  the  other ;  to  comply  with  instructions, 
and  to  evade  them ;  to  vote  for  the  line  of  36°  30',  and  to  vote 
against  it ;  to  support  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  yet  to  defeat  its 
application  to  the  only  territories  open  to  its  introduction.  I  so- 
licit— if  stronger  language  were  courteous,  I  might  demand — from 
the  majority  here  a  subdivision  of  the  bill,  to  enable  me  to  vote 
effectually  for  what  I  approve,  without  voting  equally  for  what 


BOUNTY  TO  TEXAS.  97 

my  own  judgment,  concurring  with  instructions,  condemns ;  and 
thus  to  place  myself,  where  I  should  invite  all  others  to  place 
themselves,  under  exact  and  full  responsibility  to  the  states  and  to 
the  people. 

While  I  leave  the  interests  of  Texas  in  the  care  of  her  honorable 
and  excellent  senators,  I  must  be  allowed  to  think  that  their  con- 
sent to  this  bill  betrays  a  want  of  confidence  in  her  claims  or  in 
the  justice  of  Congress.  A  just  claim  ought  not  to  need  an  unjust 
combination.  Those  who  assume  that  Texas  has  a  valid  title  to 
all  of  New  Mexico  east  of  the  Rio  Grande,  as  high  as  the  42d  par- 
allel, will  necessarily  regard  that  state  as  surrendering,  for  a  pecu- 
niary equivalent,  an  extensive  region,  effectually  secured  to  slavery, 
to  the  equivocations  of  this  compromise.  Those,  on  the  contrary, 
who  regard  the  pretensions  of  Texas  in  ISTew  Mexico  as  groundless, 
will  as  certainly  protest  against  the  surrender  of  77,000  square 
miles  of  soil,  pregnant  with  liberty,  to  the  hazards  of  this  adjust- 
ment. Both  of  these  parties,  I  think,  must  agree  that  the  United 
States  ought  not  to  pay  Texas  the  equivalent  unless  her  title  is 
good ;  and  that  if  her  title  is  good,  then  the  United  States  have  no 
constitutional  power  to  buy  her  territory.  If  they  may  buy  a  part 
of  Texas  for  purposes  not  defined  in  the  Constitution,  they  may 
buy  the  whole.  If  they  may  buy  the  territory  of  a  slave  state  to 
make  it  free,  they  may  equally  buy  the  soil  of  a  free  state  to  ster- 
ilize it  with  slavery.  If  it  be  replied  that  the  title  is  in  dispute, 
then  the  transaction  changes  character ;  the  equivalent  is  paid  for 
peace  :  and  Texas  is  not  yet  lifted  up  so  high,  nor  are  the  United 
States  brought  down  so  low,  as  to  obtain  my  consent  to  so  humili- 
ating a  traffic. 

I  have  heretofore  said  that  I  could  vote  to  pay  the  debt  of  Texas, 
on  the  ground  that  the  repudiation  of  it  by  the  United  States,  in 
the  agreement  of  annexation,  was  fraudulent.  But  Texas  seems  to 
prefer  that  we  should  buy  domain  and  dominion  from  her  rather 
than  pay  her  debts.  She  must  be  content,  therefore,  to  satisfy  us 
concerning  the  cardinal  points  in  the  bargain,  viz : 

First.     The,  reasonableness  of  the  amount  to  he  paid. 

Secondly.     The  value  of  the  equivalent  we  a/re  to  receive. 

Thirdly.     The  title  of  the  vendor. 

Fourthly.     The  use  to  which  the  territory  is  to  oe  applied. 

First.     How  much  are  we  to  pay  ?  The  sum  is  set  down  in , 

and  the  blank  is  pertinaciously  kept  open.     "The  hart  Achilles 


98 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


keeps  thicket  here."  A  philosopher  replied  to  a  man  who  asked 
leave  to  see  what  he  earned  under  his  cloak,  "  I  carry  it  there  that 
you  may  not  see  it." 

Well,  we  are  obliged  to  assume  that  Texas  is  to  be  paid  more 
than  her  claim  is  worth,  because  she  will  not  trust  to  a  distinct  and 
independent  negotiation.  The  payment  is  a  condition  of  the  ad- 
mission of  California ;  and  thus  we  see  California — the  desire  of 
the  nation  and  the  envy  of  the  world — reduced  by  the  senate  of 
the  United  States  to  the  humiliation  of  chaffering  and  cheving  with 
money-changers  and  stock-brokers,  continually  baiting  her  offers 
with  richer  rewards,  to  obtain  her  admission  into  the  Union. 

The  extent  and  value  of  the  acquisition  are  equally  unsatisfac- 
tory. When  the  question  is  on  the  sum  to  be  paid,  Texas  owns 
nearly  all  New  Mexico ;  but  when  it  comes  on  the  domain  to  be 
obtained,  it  turns  out  that  we  are  to  cede  to  Texas  a  part  of  that 
province  to  save  the  rest ;  and  to  pay  her  ten  or  fifteen  millions  to 
induce  her  acceptance  of  the  cession.  Surely,  if  we  concede  to 
Texas  the  admiration  her  representatives  require,  they  must  admit 
that  she  knows  how  to  coin  our  admiration  into  available  gold. 

The  title.  It  is  beyond  dispute  that  the  territory  which  Texas 
offers  was,  from  time  immemorial,  an  integral  part  of  New  Mexico, 
and  that  not  an  acre  of  it  ever  was  in  the  possession  of  Texas.  It 
is  equally  clear  that  the  United  States  found  it  in  the  possession 
of  Mexico,  and  conquered  and  bought  it,  and  that  they  hold  it  by 
treaty  solemnly  executed.  It  is  as  certain  that  Texas  never  con- 
quered it,  never  bought  it,  and  has  no  treaty  concession  to  show 
for  it. 

But,  Texas  insists  that  she  has  an  equitable  title.  She  asserted, 
I  think  in  1836,  by  a  law  in  her  statute  book,  that  her  boundary 
should  be  the  42d  parallel ;  that  is,  she  declared  her  purpose  to 
conquer  so  much  of  New  Mexico.  But  she  never  executed,  nor 
even  attempted  to  execute,  that  purpose.  She  came  into  the 
United  States  without  having  executed  it.  Her  statute,  therefore, 
was  mere  libitum  fulrmn.  The  United  States,  in  the  articles  of 
annexation,  refused  to  commit  themselves  to  the  claim  of  Texas. 
Subsequently  the  United  States  waged  war  against  Mexico,  not 
for  the  claim  of  Texas,  but  for  other  causes.  The  war  was  waged 
to  obtain  satisfaction  of  commercial  debts,  and  indemnities  for  the 
expenses  of  the  war.  Being  thus  engaged  in  war,  the  United 
States  accepted  New  Mexico  and  California  in  satisfaction  of  the 


NEW  MEXICO  AND  TEXAS.  99 

commercial  debts  and  the  expenses  of  the  contest,  after  paying  fif- 
teen millions  of  dollars  for  their  excess  in  value.  Thus  the  United 
States,  free  from  obligation  to  Texas,  acquired  the  territory  of 
New  Mexico,  making  the  conquest  and  paying  the  whole  con- 
sideration alone.  The  claim  of  Texas  is  as  groundless  in  equity 
as  by  the  strict  rules  of  law.  The  claim  of  Texas  is  just  as  good 
to  the  whole  of  California  as  to  New  Mexico. 

Nor  is  the  proposition  more  satisfactory  in  regard  to  the  pur- 
poses to  which  the  territory  is  to  be  applied.  I  am  satisfied  that 
the  soil  of  New  Mexico  is  free  soil  now,  by  operation  of  unre- 
pealed  Mexican  laws.  I  know  that  it  would  be  less  surely  free  if 
this  bill  were  passed.  The  bill  would  raise  a  cloud  upon  the 
question.  I  prefer  rather  to  leave  New  Mexico  as  it  is. 

New  Mexico  has  no  representative  here.  Every  phase  of  this 
compromise  exhibits  a  dismemberment  of  her  territory ;  and  yet 
she  is  to  receive  no  equivalent.  Texas  already  has  a  vast  domain 
of  surpassing  fertility.  New  Mexico  is  less  expansive  and  com- 
paratively sterile.  This  bill,  nevertheless,  literally  applies  the 
Scripture,  "  For  unto  every  one  that  hath  shall  be  given,  and  he 
shall  have  abundance  ;-  but  from  him  that  hath  not,  shall  be  taken 
away  even  that  which  he  hath."  . 

This  perversion  of  right  proceeds  upon  the  ground  that  either 
New  Mexico  has  no  certain  title,  or  that  she  has  no  political 
government  to  defend  it. 

Sir,  New  Mexico  was  a  distinct  colony  of  Spain.  New  Mexico 
was  a  state*  in  the  republic  of  Mexico,  and  afterwards  was  a  politi- 
cal territory  in  that  republic.  She  was  never  less  than  that.  We 
found  her  in  that  condition  and  character.  She  retains  that 
character  now.  Only  her  allegiance  is  transferred  to  the  United 
States,  while  some  of  the  powers  of  government,  suspended  by 
conquest,  remain  in  abeyance.  She  is  a  republic  according  to  the 
definition  of  Cicero:  " Res publica,  res  papuli  •  populus  autem, 
non  omnis  hominum  ccetus,  quoquo  modo  congregatus,  sed  ocetus 
multitudinis,  juris  consensu,  et  utilitatis  communione  sociatus" 

New  Mexico  has  domain,  population,  resources,  and  qualified 
dominion — arts,  customs,  laws,  and  religion.  She  holds  these 
physical  and  moral  elements  of  a  state  subordinate  to  the  United 
States,  but  nevertheless  distinctly  and  apart  from  all  other  com- 
munities. New  Mexico,  moreover,  has  framed  her  institutions  on 
the  principle  of  the  common  origin  of  man  and  the  common 


100  ,  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

government  of  God.  And  thus  she  possesses  the  first,  last,  and 
chief  element  of  democratic  or  republican  states — impartial  civil 
liberty — that  element  which  favors  the  creation  of  wealth,  without 
which  a  state  must  be  powerless ;  the  equalization  of  property, 
without  an  approximation  to  which  a  state  is  exposed  to  oppres- 
sion ;  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  without  which  republican  insti- 
tutions cannot  be  preserved ;  and  the  development  of  strength, 
courage,  and  enterprise,  without  which  a  state  cannot  flourish. 
New  Mexico  has  adopted  the  system  that  is  best  fitted  to  main- 
tain war,  and  the  system  that  is  best  adapted  to  secure  peace. 
New  Mexico,  therefore,  might  well  have  aspired,  even  under 
Mexican  sway — much  more  may  she  aspire  under  the  fostering 
care  of  the  United  States — to  such  greatness  as  the  free  states  in 
this  Union  have  attained — -such  greatness  as  is  attainable  by  only 
purely  democratic  states. 

New  Mexico,  pressed  by  the  encroachment  of  Texas,  and  by 
the  jealousy  of  the  slave  states,  implores  from  us  protection  of 
her  territory  and  of  her  constitution.  This  bill  of  compromise 
compromises  her  claims  by  dividing  her  territory  right  and  left, 
boldly  assigning  a  part  to  undisguised  slavery,  and  the  rest  insi- 
diously to  exposed  freedom.  Sir,  if  I  concur  in  giving  any 
government  to  New  Mexico,  it  must  be  as  good  a  one  as  she  has 
already.  Although  the  drama  of  our  conquest  in  Mexico  falls 
into  successive  acts,  conducted  by  different  performers,  it  is  never- 
theless one  whole  transaction ;  and  if  this  bill  shall  pass,  that 
transaction,  so  far  as  New  Mexico  is  concerned,  will  be  a  conquest 
of  a  free  republic,  and  the  conversion  of  it  in  whole  or  in  part 
into  a  slave  state. 

What  is  New  Mexico  that  she  should  be  thus  wronged  ?  An 
unoffending  rival,  prostrate  at  our  feet  ?  I  pray  you,  senators,  for 
the  sake,  if  not  of  justice,  at  least  of  magnanimity,  to  exercise 
your  power  over  her  by  sparing  her — to  punish  by  forgiving  her 
the  crime  of  loving  liberty  too  well.  Her  ancient  charter  contains 
the  glowing  words — established  by  the  consent  of  mankind  as  the 
foundation  of  all  true  government,  which  Jefferson  made  our 
own — "  All  men  naturally  were  born  free,  and  were,  by  privilege 
above  all  the  creatures,  born  to  command,  and  not  to  obey  earthly 
authority,  not  derived  from  their  own  consent,"  That  charter  is 
in  our  hands. 

If  we  rase  all  that  out,  and  give  the  charter  back  to  New  Mexico, 


NEW  MEXICO  AND  TEXAS.  101 

a  mutilated  and  lifeless  thing,  we  shall  have  repeated  the  crime  of 
the  partition  of  Poland,  the  crime  of  the  subversion  of  the  recent 
brief,  but  brilliant  republic  of  Italy ;  we  shall  have  emulated  the 
Stuart,  who  seized  the  charters  of  the  free  corporations  of  England, 
and  thereby  lost  a  throne  ;  and  shall  have  surpassed  the  Guelph, 
who  interpolated  taxation  without  representation  into  the  Consti- 
tution of  Britain,  and  thereby  lost  the  empire  which  we  enjoy. 
Sir,  it  would  be  an  act  so  unjust  and  so  tyrannical,  that,  upon  the 
principles  of  our  own  separation  from  Great  Britain,  it  would 
work  a  forfeiture  of  'our  title  altogether.  Hear  what  the  good 
Las  Casas  said  to  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Fifth,  concerning 
these  very  possessions : 

"Notwithstanding  your  grant  of  all  these  countries  from  the  Pope,  and  your  title  by 
conquest,  you  have  yet  no  right  over  them,  unless  you  do  in  the  first  place,  as  the  prin- 
cipal end,  regard  their  good.  The  reason  is,  that  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  principal  end 
and  the  cause  for  which  a  superior  or  universiil  lord  is  set  over  them,  which  is  their  good 
and  profit,  and  not  that  it  should  turn  to  their  destruction  and  ruin  ;  for  if  that  should  be, 
from  thenceforward  that  power  would  be  tyrannical  and  unjust,  as  tending  more  to  the 
interest  and  profit  of  the  lord,  than  to  the  public  good  and  profit  of  the  subjects,  which, 
according  to  natural  reason  and  the  laws  of  God  and  man,  is  abhorred,  and  deserves  to 
be  abhorred." 

Sir,  I  beg  those  citizens  of  the  metropolis  in  the  state  from  which 
I  come,  who  have  requested  me  to  vote  for  this  bill,  to  consider  it 
in  these  respects,  and  then  to  "  examine  me,  and  say  how  look  I, 
that  I  should  seem  to  be  lacking  in  justice  and  humanity  so  much 
as  this  fact  comes  to." 

But  it  is  said  that  the  ordinance  of  17S7  is  unnecessary  in  New 
Mexico,  and  therefore  is  an  abstraction,  and  that  it  gives  offence. 

I  cannot  yield  implicit  faith  to  those  who  assure  me  that  pecu- 
liarities of  soil  and  climate  in  New  Mexico  exclude  slavery.  They 
are  combined  with  other  statesmen  who  deny  that  point ;  and  this 
bill  concedes  away  the  point  itself.  It  expressly  covenants  to 
admit  New-  Mexico  as  a  slave  state,  if  she  shall  come  in  that  char- 
acter. I  cannot  surrender  a  just  and  benevolent  purpose  to  argu- 
ments which  knit  contradictions  as  closely  as  words  can  lie  together. 
I  know  that  there  are  slaves  at  this  moment  in  Utah  ;  and  I  know, 
moreover,  that  the  discovery  of  a  few  flakes  of  gold,  or  of  a  few 
grains  of  silver,  or  even  of  a  few  lumps  of  coal  in  the  unexplored 
recesses  of  New  Mexico,  would  be  followed  by  a  new  revelation 
of  the  will  of  the  Almighty  in  regard  to  it. 

Sir,  perhaps  those  who  excuse  this  measure  can  point  me  to  a 
tyrant  who  ever  deprived  his  subjects  of  what  he  deemed  neces- 


102  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

sary  for  them.  A  Roman  Emperor  thought  one  neck  was  enough 
for  the  Roman  people,  when  he  unshed  they  had  but  one  that  he 
might  destroy  the  body  politic  at  a  blow.  Perhaps  they  can  point 
me  to  any  act  conferring  or  declaring  human  rights  that  was  not  an 
abstraction.  It  was  observed  by  one  of  the  founders  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  England,  that  the  promulgation  of  those  rights  had 
always  "  been  in  terms  not  concrete,  but  abstract."*  Our  own 
experience  is  the  same.  There  is  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
with  its  solemn  recital  of  the  natural  equality  of  men,  and  of  the 
inalienability  of  their  essential  rights.  There  is  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  beginning  with  its  sublime  summary  of  the 
objects  of  the  government,  and  ending  with  its  jealous  bill  of  per- 
sonal rights.  What  were  these  but  abstractions  ?  There  is  the 
same  bill  of  rights  in  every  constitution ;  and  even  the  constitu- 
tions of  many  of  the  slave  states  hopefully  assert  abstractions 
of  equality,  which,  for  want  of  only  a  complete  development  of 
political  justice,  are  not  yet  reduced  to  the  concrete  by  established 
laws. 

Perhaps,  moreover,  the  apologists  can  show  me  some  act  decla- 
ratory of  human  rights  that  did  not  give  offence.  The  tyrant  of 
France  took  umbrage  at  the  noble  motto  which  Algernon  Sydney 
inscribed  in  the  album  of  the  king  of  Denmark  : 


H.«C,  IXIMICA  TTBAXNIS, 


EXSE  PETIT    PLACIDAM  SUB  LlBERTATE  QU1ETEM. 

Nay,  Algernon  Sydney  expiated  with  his  life  the  offence  of 
writing  as  mere  abstractions  the  fundamental  principles  of  our 
own  Constitution  ;  and  among  them  was  the  AVilmot  Proviso,  thus 
expressed  by  that  immortal  patriot :  "  The  liberty  of  one  man 
cannot  be  limited  or  diminished  by  one  or  by  any  number  of  men, 
and  none  can  give  away  the  right  of  another." 

Equal  justice  always  excites  fear,  and  therefore  always  gives 
offence ;  otherwise  its  way  would  be  smooth  and  its  sway  univer- 
sal. The  abstractions  of  human  rights  are  the  only  permanent 
foundations  of  society.  It  is  by  referring  to  them  that  men  deter- 
mine what  is  established  because  it  is  EIGHT,  in  order  to  uphold  it 
forever ;  and  what  is  right  only  because  it  is  established,  in  order 
that  they  may  lawfully  change  it,  in  accordance  with  the  increase 
of  knowledge  and  the  progress  of  reason. 

The  abstraction  now  in  question  is  the  right  of  all  the  members 

*  Milton. 


NEW  MEXICO  AND  TEXAS.  103 

of  a  state  to  equal  political  freedom.  That  is  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
— that  is  the  proviso  of  freedom — call  it  by  whatever  name  you 
will.  If  it  ever  was  right  at  any  time,  in  any  place,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, it  is  right  always,  in  all  places,  and  under  all  circum- 
stances. It  can  be  renounced  safely  nowhere.  Certainly  New 
Mexico  is  not  the  region,  nor  is  hers  the  soil,  nor  hers  the  clime, 
where  it  should  be  renounced.  New  Mexico  is  the  very  field  of  the 
contest.  If  we  surrender  here,  where  we  have  all  the  vantage, 
where  else  shall  we  find  ground  on  which  to  make  resistance  ? 

"We  have  taken  a  breathing  spell  from  annexation  of  territory 
to  divide  the  gains.  This  division  once  made,  no  matter  how,  the 
national  instinct — an  instinct  fostered  by  democratic  sentiments 
and  sympathies,  and  invigorated  by  martial  ambition — will  hurry 
us  on  again,  in  a  career  that  presents  few  formidable  obstacles. 
Whatever  seemed  attractive  to  the  slave  states  in  Louisiana,  in 
Florida,  in  Texas,  in  New  Mexico,  and  in  California,  is  surpass- 
ed in  the  valley  of  Mexico,  in  Yucatan,  in  Cuba,  in  Nica- 
ragua, in  Guatemala,  and  in  other  states  of  Central  America. 
There  are  fields  native  to  the  tobacco  plant,  to  the  rice  plant,  to  the 
cotton  plant,  and  to  the  sugar  cane,  and  the  tropical  fruits ;  and 
there  are  even  mines  of  silver  and  of  gold.  There  the  climate  dis- 
poses to  indolence,  indolence  to  luxury,  and  luxury  to  slavery. 
There  those  who  can  read  the  Wilmot  Proviso  only  in  the  rigors 
of  perpetual  winter,  or  in  arid  sands,  will  fail  to  discern  its  inhibi- 
tion. Our  pioneers  are  already  abroad  in  those  inviting  regions  ; 
our  capital  is  making  passages  through  them  from  ocean  to  ocean  ; 
and  within  ten  years  those  passages  will  be  environed  by  Ameri- 
can communities,  surpassing  in  power  and  wealth,  if  not  in  num- 
bers, the  unsettled  and  unenterprising  states  now  existing  there. 
You  will  say  that  national  moderation  will  prevent  further  annex- 
ation. But  national  moderation  did  not  hold  us  back  from  the 
Mississippi,  nor  from  the  Nueces,  nor  from  the  Rio  Grande,  nor 
from  even  the  coast  of  the  Pacific  ocean.  The  virtue  grows  weaker 
always  as  the  nation  grows  stronger. 

The  demand  of  the  slave  states  for  a  division  line  of  36°  30',  or 
elsewhere  across  the  continent,  between  slavery  in  the  south  and 
freedom  in  the  north,  betrays  the  near  expectation  of  these  con- 
quests. The  domestic  production  and  commerce  in  slaves  will 
supplant  the  African  slave  trade,  and  new  slave  states  will  sur- 
round the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  cover  its  islands.  Those  new  states, 


104  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

combined  with  slave  states  already  existing,  will  constitute  a  slave 
empire,  whose  seat  of  commerce  on  the  Crescent  levee  will  domi- 
neer not  only  over  the  southern  portion  of  the  continent,  but, 
through  the  Mississippi  and  its  far-reaching  tributaries,  over  the 
broad  valley  that  stretches  away  from  the  foot  of  the  Alleghanies 
to  the  base  of  the  Eocky  Mountains. 

This,  sir,  is  the  dream  of  the  slaveholder,  and  this  is  the  inter- 
pretation thereof.  I  know  full  well  that  it  is  woven  of  the  stuff 
that  all  "  dreams  are  made  of."  I  know  how  hopeless  would  be 
the  attempt  to  establish  and  to  maintain  such  states,  and  an  em- 
pire composed  of  such  states.  But  I  know  that  nothing  seems  to 
slavery  impossible,  after  advantages  already  won ;  and  that  calam- 
ities, distant,  and  therefore  derided,  will  not  deter  it  from  the 
prosecution  of  its  purpose,  or  extinguish  the  hope  of  success. 

There  is  a  sound  maxim  which  teaches  that  every  government 
is  perpetually  degenerating  toward  corruption,  from  which  it 
must  be  rescued  at  successive  periods  by  the  resuscitation  of  its 
first  principles  and  the  re-establishment  of  its  original  constitution. 
The  blood  is  not  more  native  to  the  heart  than  the  principle  of  the 
equality  of  men  contained  in  the  ordinance  of  1787  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
confers  no  power  upon  Congress  to  deprive  men  of  their  natural 
rights  and  inalienable  liberty.  I  shall,  therefore,  insist  upon  ap- 
plying the  proviso,  not  only  where  it  is  necessary  to  save  a  terri- 
tory from  slavery,  but  even  where  its  application  might  be  waived, 
as  a  means  of  preserving  and  renewing  the  Constitution  itself.  It 
cannot  be  bad  political  husbandry  to  stir  the  earth  and  apply  fresh 
mould  to  the  roots  of  the  vine  our  forefathers  planted,  when  its 
branches  are  spreading  themselves  abroad  and  clustering  upon  the 
states  which  surround  us. 

Cherishing  these  opinions,  I  have  struggled,  and  I  shall  struggle 
to  the  last,  to  extend  the  ordinance  of  1787  over  New  Mexico.  If 
I  fail  in  that,  I  shall  not  then  surrender  it  by  entering  into  the  rid- 
dling covenant  contained  in  this  bill ;  but  shall  fall  back,  as  I  did 
in  the  case  of  California,  upon  the  people  of  the  territory,  and 
leave  New  Mexico  in  the  mean  time  under  the  protection  of  her 
ancient  laws,  deeming  her  "  more  safe  in  sitting  free,  though  with- 
out guard,  in  open  danger,  than  enclosed  in  a  suspected  safety." 
This,  sir,  will  be  non-intervention — such  non-intervention  as  you 
and  I  can  practice  and  can  justify ;  not  voluntary,  self-imposed 


NEW  MEXICO  AND  UTAH.  105 

non-intervention,  to  betray  or  expose  freedom,  but  non-interven- 
tion enforced,  when  all  intervention  to  save  it  has  failed.  The 
President  anticipated  that  failure,  through  the  known  discordance 
between  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  as  we  all  might  well  have 
anticipated  it,  and  therefore  he  recommended  the  alternative  with- 
out an  unnecessary  trial.  It  would  have  been  wise  for  the  slave 
states  to  have  adopted  it  then  ;  it  would  be  wise  for  the  Senate  to 
adopt  it  now.  If  we  reject  it  a  little  longer,  we-  shall  only  reach 
it  at  last  through  the  necessity  which  he  so  well  foresaw.  When 
that  time  comes,  he  will  have  his  triumphant  vindication ;  for 
then  it  will  be  said  truly  of  him,  as  it  was  of  the  noble  Roman, 
never  did  he  do  more  for  harmony  and  for  freedom  than  when  to 
dull  and  prejudiced  apprehensions  he  seemed  to  be  doing  nothing. 

I  need  only  indicate  the  application  of  these  remarks  to  Utah. 

The  District  of  Columbia,  the  offspring  of  the  republic,  is  che- 
rished equally  by  all  of  the  states ;  and  if  the  destinies  of  the 
nation  are  correctly  apprehended,  the  capital  must  one  day  stand 
" in  dignity  and  for  the  liberal  arts"  without  a  parallel.  But  it 
yet  lacks  one  element  of  prosperity — the  freedom  of  labor ;  and 
one  element  of  greatness — the  dignity  of  labor.  Its  atmosphere 
suppresses,  although  it  cannot  smother,  the  love  of  liberty,  which 
is  a  public,  universal,  and  undying  affection.  Why  should  the 
great  interests  of  the  capital  be  cast  into  the  balance,  to  bring  up 
the  already  buoyant  scale  of  California  ?  The  only  reason  is,  that 
you  have  decided  to  overload  that  scale  with  the  weight  of  your 
gratuity  to  Texas,  and  of  the  suppression  of  freedom  in  Utah  and 
New  Mexico. 

Such,  sir,  is  the  manner  in  which  California,  Texas,  New  Mexico, 
Utah,  and  Columbia,  are  wronged,  by  casting  their  interests  into 
the  misshapen  chaos  of  fair-seeming  forms,  and  mischiefs  mani- 
fold, which  constitutes  this  extraordinary  scheme  of  compromise 
and  adjustment. 

The  scheme  has  engrossed  the  Senate  six  months,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  nearly  every  other  measure.  If  it  ever  shall  reach  the 
House  of  Representatives,  its  most  auspicious  promise  there  is  a 
rejection,  to  be  followed  by  a  final  disagreement  between  the  two 
houses.  And  this  will  be  the  sum  of  the  history  of  the  first 
session  of  the  thirty-first  Congress — the  history  of  an  attempt  to 
break,  in  one  compact  and  twisted  bundle,  fagots  so  strong  and 
gnarled  that  they  could  hardly  be  snapped  singly — an  attempt  to 


106  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

overcome  reason,  passion,  and  prejudice,  altogether,  instead  of 
engaging  reason  alone. 

We  were  driven  and  harassed  into  this  strange  proceeding  by 
alarms  of  danger  to  the  republic.  Well,  sir,  California,  New 
Mexico,  Utah,  the  District  of  Columbia,  were  no  sooner  crowded 
and  crammed  into  this  unwieldy,  rickety  ark,  through  distrust  of 
the  customary  vehicles  of  legislation,  to  weather  out  the  dark  and 
dangerous  storm,  than  the  storm  passed  away  like  a  cloud  in 
autumn.  The  ominous  kalends  of  June  have  come,  and  with 
them  the  extra-constitutional  assemblage  at  Nashville,  but  not  its 
invading  fleets  and  hostile  armies.  So  also  the  crisis  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  has  come,  without  disclosing  the  steep  ruin 
which  was  apprehended.  The  political  elements  have  subsided 
from  their  wild  uproar.  Why  not  now  let  California  resume 
the  voyage  in  her  own  separate  vessel,  and,  following  the  presi- 
dential chart,  make  the  port  speedily  and  in  safety  ? 

The  answer  is,  that  the  commonwealth  is  laboring  of  wounds 
which  threaten  its  safety.  It  cannot  be  improper  to  apply  to  each 
of  them  a  tent  that  will  search  it  to  the  bottom. 

The  first  of  them  is  the  alleged  neglect  to  surrender  fugitive 
slaves.  This  wound  bleeds  afresh  at  every  return  of  Congress  to 
the  capital: 

"  Thammuz  came  next  behind, 
Whose  annual  wound  in  Lebanon  allured 
The  Syrian  damsels  to  lament  his  fate 
In  amorous  ditties  all  a  summer's  day." 

Sir,  it  is  not  proved  here  that  three  fugitives  a  year  are  with- 
held against  lawful  demand ;  nay,  I  think  it  is  not  proved  that 
even  one  is  so  withheld.  The  value  of  what  is  called  slave  pro- 
perty, because  the  laws  of  slave  states  treat  it  as  property,  is  not 
impaired  one  dollar.  Strength,  and  beauty,  and  youth,  bring 
their  accustomed  prices.  What,  then,  is  the  evil  ? "  The  people 
of  the  free  states  hesitate  at  the  execution  of  the  act  of  1793 
among  them,  without  an  adequate  provision  for  distinguishing 
between  the  fugitive  and  the  free  citizen — between  surrendering 
the  unhappy  slave,  and  kidnapping  the  still  more  unhappy  free- 
man. And  what  is  your  remedy?  To  give  the  form  of  a  trial 
after  the  surrender,  in  the  state  to  which  the  alleged  fugitive  is 
conveyed !  Sir,  this  will  only  aggravate  the  exaggerated  evil. 

A  1  CO 

Are  you,  then,  prepared  to  confess  that  this  proud  republic  ap- 


EMANCIPATION.  107 

preaches  its  downfall,  because  a  slave  sometimes  finds  a  refuge 
under  it,  in  spite  of  its  laws? 

The  next  of  these  evils  is  the  agitation  about  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  There  are  only  two  thousand  slaves  here, 
all  told.  The  people  of  the  free  states  remonstrate  against  their 
being  held  in  hopeless  bondage  ;  but  they  wait  patiently,  until  the 
mind  of  the  nation  can  be  moved  to  abolish  it.  What  answer 
does  this  scheme  give  to  these  remonstrances?  It  proposes  to 
remove  the  slave  shambles  across  the  Potomac  ;  and,  in  return  for 
that  concession,  exacts  a  bond  for  the  continuance  of  slavery  here, 
until  Maryland  shall  consent  to  its  abolition.  Sir,  this  is  healing 
the  wound  by  plunging  deeper  into  it  the  knife  that  made  it. 
Shall  we,  then,  authorize  the  newly-returned  minister  from  Russia 
to  give  to  his  imperial  master  the  gratifying  intelligence  that  this 
republic,  the  only  counterpoise  of  his  despotism,  hastens  to  its  fall 
by  a  cause  so  inadequate  and  so  inglorious  as  the  bare  possibility 
that  two  thousand  slaves  may,  some  five,  ten,  or  twenty  years 
hence,  be  redeemed  from  bondage  ? 

The  next  of  these  evils  is  the  encroachment  of  Texas  upon  New 
Mexico.  Well,  sir,  we  will  leave  the  territory  of  New  Mexico  in 
the  keeping  of  the  President,  and  her  free  institutions  to  the  care 
of  her  own  people,  until  she  can  come  here  as  a  state  and  demand 
admission  into  the  Union. 

The  fourth  of  these  disasters  is  the  solitude  of  ten  thousand  Mor- 
mons in  the  far  off  basin  of  Salt  Lake.  But  this  solitude  is  of 
their  own  choice.  They  could  not  live  under  our  governments  in 
any  of  our  states.  It  is,  therefore,  solitude  sweetened  by  inde- 
pendence. The  remedy  proposed  by  the  compromise  is  to  extend 
to  them  institutions  like  those  from  which  they  fled.  Sir,  the 
Mormons,  when  they  shall  have  gathered  a  population  adequate  to 
sustain  a  state  government,  can  establish  one ;  and,  in  the  mean- 
time, they  will  be  living  under  the  protection  of  our  arms,  and 
enjoying  the  only  laws  they  are  yet  prepared  to  endure. 

There  is,  then,  only  one  real  wTound  upon  the  body  politic — the 
suspense  of  California.  This  is  a  wound,  whose  pain  is  not  relieved 
by  anguish  in  any  other  part ;  and  this  is  the  very  one  which,  with 
exquisite  surgery,  the  President  proposes  we  shall  heal  immedi- 
ately, and  by  itself,  alone. 

But  it  is  insisted  that,  trivial  as  these  disturbances  are,  the  coun- 
try is  nevertheless  irritated,  excited,  and  distracted.  Sir,  tin- 


108  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

country  seems  to  me  neither  excited  nor  distracted.  It  is  worried 
by  our  own  delay,  and  has  become  impatient — not  impatient 
enough  yet  to  approve  this  bill,  but  impatient  for  the  admission 
of  California  alone.  That  is  all. 

Still  it  is  replied  that  the  slavery  question  must  be  settled.  That 
question  cannot  be  settled  by  this  bill.  Slavery  and  freedom  are 
conflicting  systems,  brought  together  by  the  union  of  the  states, 
not  neutralized,  nor  even  harmonized.  Their  antagonism  is  rad- 
ical, and  therefore  perpetual.  Compromise  continues  conflict,  and 
the  conflict  involves,  unavoidably,  all  questions  of  national  interest 
— questions  of  revenue,  of  internal  improvement,  of  industry,  of 
commerce,  of  political  rivalry,  and  even  all  questions  of  peace  and 
of  war.  In  entering  the  career  of  conquest,  you  have  kindled  to 
a  fiercer  heat  the  fires  you  seek  to  extinguish,  because  you  have 
thrown  into  them  the  fuel  of  propagandism.  "We  have  the  pro- 
pagandism  of  slavery  to  enlarge  the  slave  market,  and  to  increase 
slave  representation  in  Congress  and  in  the  electoral  colleges — for 
the  bramble  ever  seeks  power,  though  the  olive,  the  fig,  and  the 
vine,  refuse  it;  and  we  have  the  propagandism  of  freedom  to 
counteract  those  purposes.  Xor  can  this  propagandism  be  arrested 
on  either  side.  The  sea  is  full  of  exiles,  and  they  swarm  over  our 
land.  Emigration  from  Europe  and  from  Asia,  from  Polynesia 
even,  from  the  free  states  and  from  the  slaves  states,  goes  on,  and 
will  go  on,  and  must  go  on,  in  obedience  to  laws  which,  I  should 
say,  were'  higher  than  the  Constitution,  if  any  such  laws  were 
acknowledged  here.  And  I  may  be  allowed  here  to  refer  those 
who  have  been  scandalized  by  the  allusion  to  such  laws  to  a  single 
passage  by  an  author  whose  opinions  did  not  err  on  the  side  of 
superstition  or  of  tyranny : 

"  If  it  be  said  that  every  nation  ought  in  this  to  follow  their  own  constitutions,  we  are 
at  an  end  of  our  controversies ;  for  they  ought  not  to  be  followed,  unless  they  are  rightly 
made ;  they  cannot  be  rightly  made  if  they  are  contrary  to  the  universal  law  of  God  and 
nature." — Discourses  on  Government,  by  Algernon  Sydney. 

But  I  was  speaking  of  emigrants ;  and  I  say  that  wherever  those 
emigrants  go — whether  they  go  from  necessity  or  of  choice — they 
fonn  continuous,  unbroken,  streaming  processions  of  colonists, 
founders  of  states,  builders  of  nations.  And  when  colonies  are 
planted,  states  are  founded,  or  nations  built,  labor  is  there  the  first 
and  indispensable  element,  and  it  begins  and  prosecutes  to  the  end 
its  strife  for  freedom  and  power.  While  the  sovereignty  of  the 


COMPROMISES.  109 

territories  remains  here,  the  strife  will  come  up  here  to  be  com- 
posed. You  may  slay  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in  the  Senate  chamber, 
and  bury  it  beneath  the  capitol  to-day ;  the  dead  corse,  in  com- 
plete steel,  will  haunt  your  legislative  halls  to-morrow. 

When  the  strife  is  ended  in  the  territories  you  now  possess, 
it  will  be  renewed  on  new  fields,  north  as  well  as  south,  to 
fortify  advantages  gained,  or  to  retrieve  losses  incurred,  for  both 
of  the  parties  well  know  that  there  is  "  Yet  in  that  word  Here- 
after." 

Senators  have  referred  us  to  the  promise  of  peace  which  heralded 
in  the  Missouri  compromise.  Sir,  that  prophecy  is  but  half  its 
journey  yet.  The  annexation  of  Texas,  the  invasion  of  Mexico, 
this  prolonged  struggle  over  California,  this  desperate  contest  for 
the  snows  and  sands  of  New  Mexico  and  Deseret,  are  all  within 
the  scope  and  limits  of  the  prediction  ;  and  so  are  the  strifes  yet  to 
come  over  ice-bound  regions  beyond  the  St.  Lawrence  and  sun- 
burnt plains  beneath  the  tropics. 

But  while  this  compromise  will  fail  of  all  its  purposes,  it  will 
work  out  serious  and  lasting  evils.  All  such  compromises  are 
changes  of  the  Constitution,  made  in  derogation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. They  render  it  uncertain  in  its  meaning,  and  impair  its 
vigor,  as  well  as  its  sanctions.  This  compromise  finds  the  Senate 
in  wide  divergence  from  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  reason 
of  the  undue  multiplication  of  feeble,  consumptive  states,  effected 
by  former  compromises  of  the  same  sort.  You  will  increase  that 
evil  until  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  will  be  unable  to  con- 
duct the  business  of  the  country,  by  reason  of  a  chronic  disagree- 
ment between  this  and  the  popular  branch  ;  and  the  result  will  be 
the  abolition  of  one  branch  or  of  the  other  ;  the  abolition  of  either 
would  probably  be  fatal  to  liberty. 

This  compromise  is  rendered  doubly  dangerous  by  the  circum- 
stance that  it  is  a  concession  to  alarms  of  disorganization  and  fac- 
tion. Such  concessions,  once  begun,  follow  each  other  with  fearful 
rapidity  and  always  increasing  magnitude.  It  "is  time,  high  time, 
that  panics  about  the  Union  should  cease  ;  that  it  should  be  known 
and  felt  that  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  within  the  limits  of 
human  security,  are  safe,  firm,  and  perpetual.  Settle  what  you 
can  settle  ;  confide  in  that  old  arbiter,  Time,  for  his  favoring  aid 
in  settling  for  the  future  what  belongs  to  the  future,  and  you  will 
hereafter  be  relieved  of  two  classes  of  patriots  whose  labors  can 

VOL.  1—8. 


110  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

well  be  spared — those  who  clamor  for  disunion,  either  to  abolish 
slavery  or  to  prevent  emancipation,  and  those  who  surrender  prin- 
ciples or  sound  policy  to  clamors  so  idle. 

Sir,  the  agitations  which  alarm  us  are  not  signs  of  evils  to 
come,  but  mild  efforts  of  the  commonwealth  for  relief  from  mis- 
chiefs past. 

There  is  a  way,  and  one  way  only,  to  put  them  at  rest.  Let  us 
go  back  to  the  ground  where  our  forefathers  stood.  While  we 
leave  slavery  to  the  care  of  the  states  where  it  exists,  let  us  inflex- 
ibly direct  the  policy  of  the  Federal  Government  to  circumscribe 
its  limits  and  favor  its  ultimate  extinguishment.  Let  those  who 
have  this  misfortune  entailed  upon  them,  instead  of  contriving 
how  to  maintain  an  equilibrium  that  never  had  existence,  consider 
carefully  how  at  some  time' — it  may  be  ten,  or  twenty,  or  even 
fifty  years  hence — by  some  means,  by  all  means  of  their  own,  and 
with  our  aid,  without  sudden  change  or  violent  action' — they  may 
bring  about  the  emancipation  of  labor  and  its  restoration  to  its 
just  dignity  and  power  in  the  state.  Let  them  take  hope  to  them- 
selves, give  hope  to  the  free  states,  awaken  hope  throughout  the 
world.  They  will  thus  anticipate  only  what  must  happen  at  some 
time,  and  what  they  themselves  must  desire  if  it  can  come  safely, 
and  as  soon  as  it  can  come  without  danger.  Let  them  do  only 
this,  and  every  cause  of  disagreement  will  cease  immediately  and 
forever.  We  shall  then  not  merely  endure  each  other,  but  we  shall 
be  reconciled  together,  and  shall  realize  once  more  the  concord 
which  results  from  mutual  league,  united  councils,  and  equal  hopes 
and  hazards  in  the  most  sublime  and  beneficent  enterprise  the 
earth  has  witnessed.  The  fingers  of  the  Powers  above  would  tune 
the  harmony  of  such  a  peace. 


EMANCIPATION.  Ill 


FREEDOM  IN  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA. 

SEPTEMBER   11,    1850. 

INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. — Mr.  CLAY'S  bill  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  being  under  consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole,  Mr.  PRATT, 
of  Maryland,  moved  amendments  which  provided  that  the  offence  of  enticing  a  slave  to 
escape,  or  the  offence  of  assisting  or  favoring  such  an  escape,  or  of  harboring  a  slave  with 
a  view  to  assist  his  escape  from  slavery,  should  be  a  felony,  punishable  with  not  less  than 
two  nor  more  than  ten  years'  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  ;  and  further  conferring 
upon  corporations  in  the  District  of  Columbia  authority  to  impose  conditions  upon  the 
residence  of  free  colored  persons  within  the  District. 

These  amendments  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  yeas  26,  nays  15;  whereupon  Mr. 
SEWARD  submitted  a  proposition  to  strike  out  the  whole  bill  and  insert  the  following 

AMENDMENT  AS  A  SUBSTITUTE: 

SEC.  1.  Slavery  shall  forever  cease  within  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  all  persons 
held  in  bondage  therein  shall  be  free.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  audit  and 
pay,  to  all  persons  holding  slaves  within  the  District  at  the  time  this  act  takes  effect, 
euch  damages  as  they  shall  suffer  by  the  passage  thereof;  and  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  is  hereby  appropriated  to  carry  this  act  into  execution,  out  of  any 
money  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

SEC.  2.  An  election  shall  be  held  in  the  District  of  Columbia  to  ascertain  whether  this 
bill  is  approved  by  the  people  thereof.  Those  who  approve  the  act  shall  express  their 
approbation  by  a  ballot  containing  the  words,  "  For  emancipation  in  the  District"  Those 
who  are  opposed  shall  vote  by  ballot  containing  the  words,  "  Against  emancipation  in 
the  District.''  All  persons  entitled  to  vote  for  any  municipal  officer  in  the  District,  and 
all  citizens  of  the  United  States  residing  within  the  District  permanently,  shall  be 
deemed  qualified  to  vote  at  such  election.  Such  election  shall  be  held  within  six  mouths 
from  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  on  public  notice  of  not  less  than  three  months,  to  be 
given  by  the  Marshal  of  the  District  If  a  majority  of  the  votes  given  at  such  election 
shall  be  in  favor  of  this  act,  it  shall  go  into  effect  immediately.  If  a  majority  of  the 
votes  shall  be  against  the  same,  this  act  shall  be  void  and  of  no  effect 

The  question  was  on  the  substitute. 

IN  submitting  so  grave  a  proposition  as  this,  I  am  aware  that  it 
would  be  no  unreasonable  demand  on  the  patience  of  the  Senate 
or  that  of  the  country,  to  ask  for  time  enough  to  explain  the  policy 
of  the  measure,  and  to  defend  the  form  in  which  it  is  submitted. 
But  there  remain  only  fifteen  secular  days  of  this  session  of  Con- 


112  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

gress,  and  in  my  judgment  the  time  has  come  for  debate  to  cease, 
and  for  action  to  go  on.  I  forbore  from  debate  on  offering  the 
amendment  for  this  reason ;  and  I  forbore,  also,  because  at  an 
earlier  stage  of  the  session,  I  had  discussed  at  large  all  the  prin- 
ciples involved  in  the  measure.  I  had  yet  another  reason  for  that 
forbearance. 

Speaking  for  myself  alone,  and  imputing  no  prejudice  and  no 
injustice  to  others,  I  may  be  allowed  to  remark  that  the  abolition 
of  slavery  anywhere  seems  to  me  a  just  and  wise  policy,  provided 
it  can  be  effected  without  producing  injury  outweighing  its  bene- 
fits. Opposition  to  emancipation  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
therefore,  seemed  to  me  to  be  a  bad  cause,  and  it  is  in  the  nature  of 
a  bad  cause  to  betray  itself.  I  did  not  mistake,  then,  in  supposing 
that  the  opposition  which  my  proposition  would  encounter  would 
prove  its  best  vindication. 

Influenced  by  these  considerations,  I  shall  not  now  address  myself 
to  the  broad  merits  of  the  question,  but  shall  be  content  with 
simply  adverting  to  the  points  which  have  been  made  during  the 
present  debate.  The  first  point  was  made  by  the  honorable 
senator  from  Georgia,  [Mr.  DAWSOX]  with  the  concurrence  of 
some  other  senators,  and  consisted  in  the  improper  or  bad  motives 
which  they  saw  fit  to  impute  to  the  author  of  the  measure.  Sir. 
the  great  instructor  in  the  art  of  reasoning  (Lord  Bacon)  teaches 
that  it  is  better  always  to  answer  to  the  "  matter  "  of  an  adversary 
than  to  his  "  person."  The  imputation  of  motives  does  not  come 
within  that  rule,  and  therefore  it  falls  at  my  feet.  The  measure 
I  have  submitted  is  either  right  or  wrong.  If  right,  no  unworthi- 
ness  of  motive  of  mine  can  detract  from  its  merits ;  if  wrong,  no 
purity  of  motive  can  redeem  it. 

The  second  point  is  that  which  has  been  so  fully  answered  by 
the  honorable  and  distinguished  senator  from  Kentucky,  [Mr. 
CLAY]  viz. :  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  I  find  that  power  in  the  Constitution,  and 
it  is  defined  by  these  words  :  "  To  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in 
all  cases  whatsoever  over  such  district,  not  exceedins:  ten  miles 

O 

square,  as  may,  by  cession  of  particular  states,  and  the  accept- 
ance of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  government  of  the  United 
States." 

The  District  of  Columbia  is  that  district  not  exceeding  ten  miles 

o 

square.     It  has  become  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the  United 


DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA.  113 

States  by  cession  of  the  state  of  Maryland,  accepted  by  Congress. 
It  is  of  the  very  nature  of  the  power  that  it  is  "  exclusive,"  and 
applies  "  to  all  cases  whatsoever,"  whenever  the  district  becomes, 
in  the  manner  denned,  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  This,  I  think,  is  a  conclusive  answer  to  the  argument  of 
the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky,  that  it  is  limited  by  an 
implied  understanding  that  it  should  not  be  exercised  to  abolish 
slavery.  Neither  could  the  state  of  Maryland  make  nor  could 
the  United  States  yield  such  a  reservation. 

An  exclusive  power  is  that  power  which  is  possessed  and  may 
be  exercised  independently  of  all  other  sovereignties  on  earth. 
Congress,  then,  having  "exclusive  power,"  has  absolute  sove- 
reignty, unless  cases  be  excepted  in  which  it  shall  not  be  exer- 
cised. But  such  exceptions  are  excluded  by  the  broad  expression, 
"  in  all  cases  whatsoever." 

Those  who  framed  the  Constitution  were  fully  aware  of  the  ex- 
tent of  the  power  which  it  conferred.  Mr.  Madison  thus  describes 
it  in  the  43d  number  of  the  Federalist : 

"  The  indispensable  necessity  of  complete  authority  at  the  seat  of  government,  carries 
its  own  evidence  with  it.  It  is  a  power  exercised  by  every  legislature  in  the  Union — I 
might  say  of  the  world — by  virtue  of  its  general  supremacy." 

Yes,  sir,  it  is  a  complete,  not  an  imperfect  power.  It  is  a  power 
over  the  district,  equal  to  any  authority  which  can  be  exercised 
by  any  legislature  of  any  "  state  in  this  Union,"  or  by  any  legisla- 
ture of  any  state  or  nation  "  in  the  world"  It  is  a  power  described 
in  the  philosophy  of  government,  as  "  summum  imperium,  summo 
modo  " — a  power,  within  the  region  of  its  exercise,  complete,  abso- 
lute, universal.  Now,  every  legislature  in  this  Union,  every 
sovereign  authority  in  the  world,  has  the  power  to  abolish  slavery. 
More  than  half  the  states  in  this  Union  have  abolished  or  prohibited 
it.  France,  England,  and  Mexico,  have  abolished  and  prohibited 
it.  Congress  can  do,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  what  they  have 
done  within  their  respective  dominions. 

I  dwell  upon  this  point  only  a  moment  longer.  Slavery  within 
the  District  of  Columbia  exists  only  by  the  action  of  Congress. 
Instead  of  pursuing  the  argument  further,  to  prove  that  Con- 
gress has  the  power  to  make  a  free  man,  I  demand  proof  that 
Congress  possesses  the  power  to  make  a  slave,  or  hold  a  man  in 
bondage. 

All  the  other  points  which  have  been  raised,  apply,  not  to  the 


114  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

merits  of  the  proposition  for  emancipation,  but  only  to  the  form 
and  manner  of  carrying  it  into  effect.  Such  were  the  objections 
raised  by  my  honorable  and  esteemed  friend  from  Connecticut, 
[Mr.  BALDWC:,]  and  my  no  less  honorable  and  esteemed  friend  from 
Massachusetts,  [Mr.  "WixraROP.]  It  will  be  seen  at  once,  that 
these  objections  concede  that  the  principle  of  the  measure  is  right. 
Nevertheless,  without  holding  those  gentlemen  to  this  concession, 
but  leaving  them  to  judge  and  act  for  themselves,  I  shall  be  con- 
tent to  reply  to  them,  so  far  only  as  to  vindicate  the  plan  of  eman- 
cipation embodied  in  the  amendment.  What,  then,  is  the  form, 
and  what  the  manner  proposed  ?  The  amendment  declares  that 
slavery  shall  forever  cease  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  that  all 
persons  held  in  bondage  therein,  when  the  act  shall  go  into  effect, 
shall  be  free.  It  directs  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  pay  the 
damages  which  any  person  holding  slaves  within  the  district  shall 
incur  by  reason  of  its  passage,  and  it  appropriates  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  as  a  fund  for  that  purpose.  The  amendment 
further  provides  for  an  election,  in  which  the  qualified  and  com- 
petent citizens  of  the  district  shall  express  their  approbation  or 
disapprobation  of  the  act.  If  they  disapprove,  it  shall  be  void  and 
of  no  effect. 

I  submit,  sir,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  plan  is  adequate.  It  will 
secure  the  abolition  of  slavery  within  the  district,  if  it  obtain  the 
consent  of  those  who  are  most  particularly  concerned  in  the  ques- 
tion. I  have  not  learned  from  either  of  my  honorable  friends  that 
he  is  in  favor  of  emancipating  the  slaves  without  the  consent  of 
the  people  in  the  district,  and  we  have  all  heard  other  honorable 
senators  insist  upon  that  consent  as  indispensable.  I  do  not  insist 
upon  it  for  myself.  I  have  only  surrendered  so  much  to  their 
objections  ;  but  if  a  majority  of  the  Senate  shall  waive  the  objec- 
tion, it  would  give  me  pleasure  to  modify  the  plan  accordingly. 

Secondly,  the  plan  is  an  equal  one.  While  it  restores  to  the 
slave  the  inestimable  right  of  freedom ;  it  awards  to  him,  who,  by 
authority  of  Congress,  has  hitherto  held  the  slave  in  bondage,  a 
just  remuneration  and  indemnity  for  his  loss.  It  is,  then,  adequate 
and  equal. 

Thirdly,  the  plan  is  not  violent  nor  capricious,  but  is  deliberate 
and  prudent ;  for  it  makes  this  solemn  transaction  to  depend  upon 
a  canvass  to  be  continued  not  less  than  three  months,  nor  longer 
than  six  months,  among  the  people  of  the  district. 


DISTRICT  OF   COLUMBIA.  115 

Fourthly,  the  plan  is  ~broad  enough.  I  am  informed  by  what  I 
believe  credible  evidence,  that  the  number  of  slaves  within 
the  district,  as  ascertained  by  the  census,  male  and  female,  old  and 
young,  great  and  small,  is  about  six  hundred,*  and  that  their  value 
is  estimated  by  those  who  regard  them  as  subjects  of  traffic,  as  I 
certainly  do  not,  at  three  hundred  dollars  for  each  person,  and  in 
the  aggregate  one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollar's.  The 
amendment  appropriates  two  hundred  thousand  dollars.  If  the 
sum  is  too  great,  nothing  will  be  lost.  If  it  is  too  small,  the  defi- 
ciency can  be  now7  or  afterwards  supplied. 

But  my  honorable  friend  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  "VVixTiiROP,] 
objects  that  the  amendment  contains  no  provision  for  the  support 
of  the  slaves,  or  of  any  of  them,  after  their  emancipation.  Sir,  if 
I  could  admit  that  this  objection  had  weight,  it  would  be  a  suffi- 
cient answer  that,  in  the  judgment  of  other  senators,  such  a  pro- 
vision would  only  tend  to  defeat  the  object  in  view. 

If  honorable  senators  think  I  err  in  this,  let  them  submit  such 
a  provision,  and  if  it  do  not  embarrass  the  bill,  it  shall  receive  my 
vote. 

But  I  think  the  objection  itself  is  not  well  grounded.  The  slave 
is  held  in  bondage,  not  for  his  own  support  and  for  his  owrn  bene- 
fit, but  for  the  support  and  benefit  of  his  master.  It  is  the  slave, 
then,  that  supports,  or  contributes  to  the  support,  of  the  master, 
and  not  the  master  that  supports  the  slave.  It  is  not  in  humanity 
that  it  should  be  otherwise.  Relieve  the  slave,  then,  from  the 
support  of  his  master,  and  his  whole  energies  will  be  directed  to 
making  provision  for  himself  and  his  own  family.  The  instincts 
of  the  common  nature  which  he  shares  with  us  will  do  the  rest. 
But  you  may  reply  that  these  persons  are  degraded,  so  as  to  be  un- 
able to  take  care  of  themselves.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  in  this  dis- 
trict that  the  institution  assumes  its  most  cheerful,  or  least  repulsive 
aspect.  Here,  in  the  centre  of  the  Union,  in  the  capital  of  this 
free  empire,  the  African  race  has  been  held  in  bondage  from 
generation  to  generation,  through  a  period  of  near  two  hundred 
years.  We  all  trust,  we  all  believe,  that  the  ultimate  result  of  the 
transfer  of  this  foreign  population  to  our  own  shores,  is  to  be  the 
bringing  of  them  to  a  condition  to  support  themselves,  and  to  exer- 
cise the  privileges  of  self-government.  It  is  a  sad  commentary 
upon  the  operations  of  our  own  institutions,  to  say  that  two  hundred 

*  The  census  returns  afterward  showed  the  number  to  be  about  2000. 


116  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

years  have  not  been  enough  to  bring  these  six  hundred  persons, 
under  such  favorable  auspices,  to  the  capability  of  providing  for 
their  own  daily  wants. 

The  next  objection  to  the  measure  which  I  shall  notice  is,  that 
it  is  an  indiscreet  one.  This,  I  think,  was  the  language  of  my 
honorable  friend  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  WIXTHKOP.]  The  objec- 
tion implies  assent  to  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  the  measure  itself, 
and  takes  issue  only  upon  the  time,  occasion,  or  circumstances  in 
which  it  is  proposed.  It  concedes,  moreover,  that  it  would  be 
proper  at  a  different  time,  on  some  other  occasion,  or  in  some 
other  circumstances. 

Let  us  see,  then,  wherein  the  indiscretion  consists.  And,  first, 
as  to  the  occasion.  One  honorable  senator  [Mr.  WIXTHROP]  says 
that  by  supporting  it  on  this  occasion  wre  should  incur  the  risk  of 
losing  the  bill  itself  which  is  proposed  to  be  amended,  and  thus 
losing  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  within  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia. Suppose  we  do.  AVhat  would  be  the  loss  ?  The  amendment 
before  you  secures  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  for  it  abolishes 
slavery  altogether.  When  slavery  falls,  the  trade,  which  is  only 
an  incident  of  it,  must  instantly  cease.  But  the  senator  is  afraid 
that,  between  the  two,  both  will  be  lost.  That  cannot  happen. 
The  passage  of  either  will  accomplish  the  object  in  view. 

If  the  amendment  shall  pass,  you  will  have  a  better  law  than 
the  bill  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen.  If  the  amendment  shall 
fail,  you  will  still  have  the  bill  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen. 

But  the  bill  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  is  not  put  in  jeopardy. 
It  is  lost,  or  worse  than  lost,  to  us  already.  If  it  had  not  been,  1 
should  not  have  offered  my  proposition  as  an  amendment.  The 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  indeed,  remains  in  the  bill ;  but  con- 
ditions have  been  annexed  which  cannot  be  accepted,  and  which 
compel  us  of  the  free  states  to  reject  the  bill  itself.  One  of  these 
conditions  is,  the  converting  into  a  felony,  punishable  with  ten 
years'  imprisonment,  the  act  of  aiding  or  favoring  the  escape  of  a 
fugitive  slave,  or  even  the  act  of  harboring  a  slave  with  a  view  to 
aid  his  escape.  The  punishment  already  denounced  by  the  law  is 
severe  enough,  in  my  judgment,  for  an  act  that  is  wrong,  not  be- 
cause it  is  erroneous  in  itself,  but  only  because  it  is  declared  by  the 
statute  to  be  wrong.  The  second  condition  which  has  been  annexed 
to  the  bill  is,  the  conferring  of  a  right  upon  the  corporations  within 
the  district  to  impose  conditions  upon  which  freed  men  shall  be 


DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA.  117 

allowed  to  enter  and  remain  in  the  district,  or  depart  from  it ;  in 
other  words,  to  proscribe  free  men,  who  are  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  free  states. 

By  the  addition  of  these  conditions,  the  bill  has  been  converted 
from  a  law  meliorating  slavery  within  the  district,  into  a  law  to 
fortify  slavery  and  proscribe  free  men.  When  that  was  done,  my 
last  hope,  my  last  purpose,  my  last  thought  of  supporting  the  bill, 
was  gone.  And  yet  this  bill  is  the  bill  which  the  honorable  sena- 
tor from  Massachusetts  complains  that  I  am  putting  in  jeopardy. 
This,  sir,  and  nothing  other  or  different  from  this,  is  the  boon  which 
he  says  was  just  within  our  grasp,  and  which  I  have  struck  dowTii 
to  the  earth.  Sir,  when  my  amendment  shall  have  been  rejected, 
this  bill  will  still  remain.  I  wait  to  see  whether  he  will  embrace 
it,  and  take  it  to  his  bosom.  I  shall  not  harbor  it ;  it  would  sting 
me  to  death. 

So  much,  sir,  for  the  occasion.  And  now  for  the  indiscretion, 
so  far  as  it  depends  upon  time  and  circumstances.  I  think  it 
wrong  to  hold  men  in  bondage  at  any  time  and  under  any  circum- 
stances. I  think  it  right  and  just,  therefore,  to  abolish  slavery 
when  we  have  the  power,  at  any  time,  at  all  times,  under  any 
circumstances.  Now,  sir,  so  far  as  the  objection  rests  upon  the 
time  when  this  measure  is  proposed,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  if  the 
present  is  not  the  right  time,  then  there  must  be,  or  there  must 
have  been,  some  other  time,  and  that  must  be  a  time  that  is  already 
past,  or  time  yet  to  come.  "Well,  sir,  slavery  has  existed  here 
under  the  sanction  of  Congress  for  fifty  years,  undisturbed.  The 
right  time,  then,  has  not  passed.  It  must,  therefore,  be  a  future 
time.  Will  gentlemen  oblige  me  and  the  country  by  telling  us 
how  far  down  in  the  future  the  right  time  lies  ?  When  will  it  be 
discreet  to  bring  before  Congress  and  the  people  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ?  Sir,  let  not  senators  delude 
themselves.  I  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  the  Senate  some  weeks 
ago,  a  proposition  to  admit  New  Mexico  as  a  state.  It  was  rejected 
then  by  a  vote  unanimous,  except  my  own— those  who  were  in 
favor  of  the  measure  voting  with  its  opponents,  because  it  was  not 
the  rigid  time.  They  said  the  Constitution  had  not  been  officially 
received.  It  was  not  a  fit  occasion.  The  measure  was  offered  as 
an  amendment  to  a  bill. 

Well,  sir,  the  constitution  was  officially  received  yesterday,  and 
the  senators  of  the  state  were  in  waiting  here.  But  New  Mexico, 


118  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATR 

in  the  meantime,  had  been  organized  as  a  territory,  and  now  her 
state  constitution  is  not  even  honored  with  a  reference.  There  is 
no  right  time,  no  fit  occasion,  for  Isew  Mexico  to  enter  the  Union 
as  a  free  state.  So,  sir,  it  will  be  with  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  The  right  time,  if  it  be  not  now,  will 
never  come.  Sir,  each  senator  must  judge  for  himself.  Judging 
for  myself,  I  am  sure  the  right  time  has  come.  Past  the  middle 
age  of  life,  it  has  happened  to  me  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  be  a 
legislator  for  slaves.  I  believe  it  to  be  my  duty  to  the  people  of 
this  district,  to  the  country,  and  to  mankind,  to  restore  them  to 
freedom.  For  the  performance  of  such  a  duty,  the  first  time  and 
the  first  occasion  which  offers  is  the  right  one.  The  people  who 
sent  me  here  knew  my  opinions  and  my  principles  on  that  subject. 
If  I  should  waive  this  time  and  this  occasion,  such  is  the  uncer- 
tainty of  human  life  and  of  human  events,  that  no  other  may  offer 
themselves  to  me.  I  could  not  return  to  the  people  who  sent  me 
here,  nor  could  I  go  before  my  Maker,  having  been  here,  without 
having  humbly,  but  firmly,  endeavored  to  discharge  that  great 
obligation. 

Sir,  I  can  spare  one  word  of  reply,  not  to  the  wretched  imputa- 
tion that  I  seek  by  this  measure  to  dissolve  the  union  of  these 
states,  but  to  the  argument  that  the  measure  itself  tends  to  so 
disastrous  a  consummation.  This  Union  is  the  feeblest  and  weak- 
est national  power  that  exists  on  earth,  if  with  twenty  millions  of 

freemen  now  it  cannot  bear  the  shock  of  adding  six  hundred  to 
. 

their  number.     The  Union  stands,  as  I  have  demonstrated  at  large 

o 

on  former  occasions,  not  upon  a  majority  of  voices  in  either  or 
both  houses  of  Congress  upon  any  measure  whatever,  but  upon 
enduring  physical,  social,  and  political  necessities,  which  will  sur- 
vive all  the  questions  and  commotions  and  alarms  of  this  day,  and 
will  survive  the  extinction  of  slavery,  not  only  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  but  throughout  the  world.  Others  may  try  to  save  it, 
by  concessions  to  slavery,  from  imaginary  perils.  I  shall  still  seek 
to  perpetuate  it  by  rendering  the  exercise  of  its  power  equal, 
impartial,  and  beneficent  to  all  classes  and  conditions  of  mankind. 


FEW  MEXICO.  119 


FEEEDOM    IN    NEW    MEXICO. 

JULY  26,  1850. 

Mr.  SEWARD  submitted  an  amendment  authorizing  the  President  to  issue  a  proclama- 
tion declaring  that  New  Mexico  should  be  admitted  as  a  state  on  the  presentation  of  her 
constitution  heretofore  adopted,  and  also  authorizing  New  Mexico  to  appoint  three  com- 
missioners, to  be  associated  with  the  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the  United  States 
and  by  Texas,  in  settling  the  boundary  question  between  Texas  and  New  Mexico. 

THE  object  of  this  amendment  is  to  bring  before  the  Senate 
an  important  question — the  admission  of  New  Mexico  as  one 
of  the  states  of  this  Union,  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  origi- 
nal states,  under  the  constitution  which  her  convention  has 
adopted. 

I  have  heard  here  much  of  nationality — of  national  principles, 
sympathies,  and  feelings.  Such  principles,  sympathies,  and  feel- 
ings, meet  my  highest  respect  and  admiration ;  but  I  differ  very 
much  from  many  who  bestow  that  commendation,  in  regard  to 
what  principles,  sympathies,  and  feelings,  deserve  the  character 
of  nationality.  So  far  as  I  have  heard  here,  it  has  generally  been 
bestowed  upon  those  movements*  which  left  out  of  view  every- 
thing of  paramount  and  ultimate  importance,  in  regard  to  the 
perfection  and  permanence  of  the  institutions  of  the  country,  and 
which  were  distinguished  on  the  other  hand  by  a  disposition  to  con- 
cede and  compromise  for  the  present  hour  and  for  temporary  pur- 
poses. I  have  no  part  in  such  principles,  sympathies,  or  feelings. 
I  believe  that  concession  to-day  only  increases  the  evils  and  em- 
barrassments of  to-morrow.  I  will  show  how  the  question  of 
boundary  between  New  Mexico  and  Texas — that  great  question 
upon  which  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country  are  supposed 
to  depend — may  be,  not  postponed,  but  definitely  and  justly  set- 
tled. That  is  the  object  of  my  proposition. 


120  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

It  will  be  said  that  the  proposition  is  premature,  because  the 
Senate  has  no  official  information  that  a  constitution  has  been 
sanctioned  by  the  people  of  ]S"ew  Mexico.  It  is  true  that  we  have 
not  that  information,  and  therefore  there  seems  to  be  a  propriety 
in  delaying  the  proposition. 

Nevertheless,  I  find  myself  obliged  to  bring  in  the  proposition, 
for  the  reason  that  an  emergency,  which  I  cannot  control,  brings 
the  question  up  now,  and  requires  the  admission  of  New  Mexico 
at  the  hazard  of  her  admission  being  forever  lost. 

The  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  BRADBURY] 
provides  for  a  disposition  of  the  boundary  dispute,  which  would 
absolutely  prevent  the  Senate  from  considering  the  constitution  of 
New  Mexico  and  her  demand  for  admission,  when  they  should  be 
presented  here,  with  official  authority,  and  with  accustomed  for- 
mality. It  is  not  my  fault  that  the  question  is  thus  sprung  upon 
the  Senate  now.  If  the  Senate  will  strike  out  from  this  bill  all 
that  relates  to  the  boundary  of  Texas  and  to  the  territory  of  New 
Mexico,  then  the  question  of  admitting  New  Mexico  may  be  post- 
poned until  she  shall  present  her  constitution,  wThich,  however,  is 
already  unofficially  on  our  tables. 

But  the  Senate  will  do  no  such  thing.  It  is  apparent  enough 
that  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  BRADBURY] 
is  to  be  adopted,  and  that  amendment  absolutely  postpones  the 
question  of  the  admission  of  New  Mexico  until  after  the  report 
of  the  commissioners  shall  have  been  confirmed  by  Texas  and  the 
United  States.  When  that  action  shall  have  taken  place,  there 
will  probably  be  no  New  Mexico  to  be  admitted ;  certainly  none 
worth  admitting,  or  fit  to  be  admitted.  The  delay,  thus  designed, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  interests  and  with  the  rights  of  the  people 
of  New  Mexico.  The  senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  HALE] 
has  truly  described  those  rights.  They  are  indeed  a  conquered— 
a  subjugated  people.  But  they  are,  nevertheless,  a  people — a 
people  constituting  a  community — and,  as  such,  socially  and  po- 
litically enjoying  rights  as  definite,  as  important,  as  the  rights  of 
the  people  of  any  territory,  or  even  of  any  state  within  the  United 
States.  They  have  undergone  a  change  of  sovereignty  only,  but 
in  all  other  respects  their  position  and  their  rights  are  unchanged. 
When  they  lost  the  rights  secured  to  them  by  the  constitution  of 
Mexico,  they  acquired  the  rights  of  American  citizens  secured  to 
them  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  Those  rights  in- 


NEW  MEXICO.  121 

volve  the  protection  of  their  property,  of  their  lives,  of  their 
liberty,  and  of  their  territory.  All  these  are  rights  of  which 
the  United  States  can  lawfully  deprive  no  community  on  earth. 
They  may  extend  their  conquering  arm  over  states  and  territories 
and  provinces,  but  it  carries  with  it  freedom  and  security  to  the 
people  inhabiting  the  subjugated  countries.  Such  are  the  rights 
of  the  people  of  New  Mexico,  secured  to  them  by  the  law  of 
nations,  which  follows  immediately  upon  any  conquest.  But 
these  rights,  moreover,  are  expressly  secured  by  the  treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  The  United  States  acquired  New  Mexico 
as  a  territory  or  province  belonging  to  the  empire  of  Mexico, 
and  they  stipulated  by  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  and  of  course  with 
the  people  of  the  province  of  New  Mexico,  that  they  should  be 
protected  in  all  their  rights  before  described,  and  should  be 
admitted  to  the  privileges  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
should  have  government  established  over  them. 

Sir,  the  proposition  which  I  submit  is  to  fulfil  that  treaty  in  its 
letter  and  spirit — nothing  more  ;  and  the  time  has  come  to  insist 
upon  nothing  less.  It  is  to  incorporate  New  Mexico  as  a  state. 
This  provision  stands  opposed  to  the  provision  in  the  bill  for  incor- 
porating only  a  part  of  New  Mexico,  as  a  dependent  territory  of 
the  United  States,  assigning  the  rest  to  the  state  of  Texas.  I  pray 
you  to  consider  these  two  propositions  upon  their  merits,  respec- 
tively, and  consider  them  well.  In  the  first  place,  mine  is  most 
in  harmony  and  most  congenial  with  the  treaty — with  a  fair  and 
just  construction  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  What  is 
the  language  of  that  treaty  ?  It  is  not  that  the  province  of  New 
Mexico  shall  be  admitted  into  the  United  States  as  a  territory,  or 
as  a  part  of  the  state  of  Texas  or  of  any  other  existing  state  in 
the  Union ;  but  it  is  that  it  shall  be  admitted  as  a  state.  The 
treaty  contains  no  provision  whatever  for  bringing  that  territory 
into  provincial  or  territorial  degradation.  It  is  fair  and  just, 
therefore,  to  say  that  the  treaty  would  be  broken  by  denying  to 
the  people  of  New  Mexico  the  rights  and  the  position  of  a  state. 
It  is  only  fair  to  presume,  that  if  the  United  States  had  con- 
templated that  New  Mexico  was  to  be  held  in  territorial  vassalage 
indefinitely,  they  would  so  have  expressed  themselves  in  the  treaty. 
I  know  that  the  right  to  judge  of  the  time  when  New  Mexico 
should  be  admitted  as  a  state  was  reserved  to  Congress.  But  that 
is  all  that  is  reserved,  the  right  to  determine  the  time  when.  The 


122  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

reservation  keeps  that  province  exactly  in  the  condition  in  which 
we  now  find  it,  until  Congress  shall  adopt  the  proposition  to  admit 
New  Mexico  as  a  state. 

In  the  next  place,  my  proposition  is  most  compatible  and  har- 
monious with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a 
remarkable  feature  of  that  constitution,  that  its  framers  never 
contemplated  colonies,  or  provinces,  or  territories,  at  all.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  contemplated  states  only;  nothing  less  than 
states  ;  perfect  states ;  equal  states ;  as  they  are  called  here,  so- 
vereign states. 

There  was  indeed  a  domain  belonging  to  the  United  States  at 
the  time  the  constitution  was  adopted,  which,  for  want  only  of 
population,  was  set  off  temporarily  as  a  territory  —  the  north- 
western territory.  But  that  was  only  a  temporary  arrangement. 
The  arrangement  itself  provided  for  the  subdivision  of  the  terri- 
tory, and  its  organization  into  five  new  states,  the  moment  that  it 
should  be  peopled.  There  is  reason — there  is  sound  political  wis- 
doin,  in  this  provision  of  the  constitution  excluding  colonies,  which 
are  always  subject  to  oppression,  and  excluding  provinces,  which 
always  tend  to  corrupt  and  enfeeble  and  ultimately  to  break  down 
the  parent  state. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  proposition  which  I  have  submitted  is 
entirely  congenial  with  the  treaty  and  with  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  On  the  other  hand,  the  proposition  to  extend  a 
territorial  form  of  government  over  this  people,  or  to  assign  them 
in  whole  or  in  part  to  Texas,  is  in  violation  of  both.  New  Mexico 
is  entitled  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  immediately,  because  her 
interests  now  require  it ;  and  because  the  stipulation  in  the  treaty, 
reserving  to  Congress  the  right  to  decide  upon  the  time  when,  is 
to  be  regarded  as  reserving,  not  the  exercise  of  discretion  to  op- 
press the  people  of  New  Mexico,  but  a  discretion  to  be  exercised 
for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  that  people — a  discretion  for  their 
good,  not  for  their  oppression  and  ruin.  What,  then,  is  the  time 
when  New  Mexico  ought  to  be  admitted  ?  That  is  the  only  ques- 
tion. That  time  must  have  come,  whenever  it  shall  have  hap- 
pened that  immediate  admission  has  become  necessary  to  save  the 
liberties  of  her  people,  and  the  integrity  of  her  territory.  That 
is  the  time,  precisely.  And  it  has  now  come,  for  both  are  in 
danger.  The  liberties  of  New  Mexico  are  in  danger  of  being 
subverted,  by  her  being  merged  into  the  state  of  Texas.  Even 


NEW  MEXICO.  123 

her  political  existence  is  threatened  to  be  destroyed  by  the  state 
of  Texas,  with  an  armed  force.  What  answer  will  you  give  me 
on  this  point  ?  None  is  made,  except  that  New  Mexico  is  not  in 
a  condition  to  be  admitted.  New  Mexico  fulfils  all  the  conditions 
which  you  have  ever  required  on  the  admission  of  a  state  into  the 
Union.  There  is  only  one  condition  which  the  Constitution  recog- 
nizes ;  and  that  is,  that  she  shall  present  a  republican  form  of 
government.  New  Mexico  fulfils  that  condition.  You  have  all 
seen  and  read  her  Constitution,  although  it  has  not  yet  been  offi- 
cially promulgated.  You  have  heretofore  established  precedents, 
by  which  you  have  required  a  population  of  a  given  number  to 
constitute  a  state,  and  that  number  is  the  one  which  constitutes  the 
basis  of  the  selection  of  one  member  of  Congress.  New  Mexico 
more  than  fulfils  that  condition.  She  has  a  population  of  over  one 
hundred  thousand  souls.  She  has  a  population  double  that  of 
Florida,  when  she  was  admitted  as  a  state.  She  has  a  population 
within  twTo-thirds  as  large  as  Texas,  which  has  two  members  of 
Congress.  Sixty  thousand  inhabitants  were  deemed  enough  to 
entitle  the  state  of  Ohio  to  admission.  The  same  number  was 
required  of  Michigan,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Iowa.  And  New 
Mexico  exceeds  it  by  more  than  two-thirds. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  people  of  New  Mexico  are  unfit  for 
self-government.  Sir,  this  objection  comes  too  late.  No  one, 
maintaining  the  capacity  of  man  for  self-government,  and  ad- 
mitting the  validity  of  the  treaty,  can  assert  that  any  one  hundred 
thousand  people,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  recognized  as  such 
by  its  constitution  and  laws,  are  incapable  of  the  functions  of  self- 
government.  I  know  it  is  said  that  you  will  govern  them  better 
than  they  can  govern  themselves.  What  is  the  guaranty  you  are 
offering,  for  governing  them  better  than  they  can  govern  them- 
selves ?  It  is  contained  in  this  bill,  to  dismember  their  territory 
and  subvert  their  constitution,  which  secures  equal  and  impartial 
freedom.  They  can  assuredly  do  better  for  themselves  than  that. 

They  are  a  mingled  population — marked  by  characteristics  which 
resulted  from  the  extraordinary  system  of  colonization  and  govern- 
ment maintained  by  Old  Spain  in  her  provinces — a  policy  entirely 
different  from  our  own.  The  colonization  of  Spanish  America 
proceeded  altogether  from  an  insatiable  thirst  for  gold,  and  for 
nothing  else.  The  government  of  Spain  over  her  colonies  was  an 


124  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

arbitrary  despotism,  conducted  on  the  principle  of  deriving  the 
utmost  profit  and  advantage  from  her  colonies. 

The  colonization  of  our  states,  on  the  contrary,  was  the  result 
of  an  ardent  thirst,  not  for  gold,  but  for  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
Destitute  even  of  the  motive  of  ambition,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  grew  up  by  slow  degrees.  It  was  one  hundred  and  seventy 
years  after  the  first  attempt  at  colonization  by  the  Anglo-Saxons, 
before  any  permanent  or  well-established  institutions  were  founded 
in  this  country.  And  less  than  one  hundred  years  ago,  no  Briton 
owned  an  acre  in  the  valley  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  or  in  the  valley 
of  the  Mississippi,  or  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Pacific 
ocean.  The  career  of  Spain,  on  the  other  hand,  was  quick,  bril- 
liant, and  successful ;  and  the  whole  of  the  Spanish  possessions 
on  this  continent  rose  at  once  into  vast  vice-royalties,  rich  in 
wealth,  and  filled  with  splendid  and  imposing  displays  of  despotic 
power.  But  within  the  last  hundred  years,  the  Anglo-Saxon 
power  has  gone  on  steadily  and  firmly,  increasing  and  encroach- 
ing, until  it  has  overspread  nearly  the  whole  of  the  northern  por- 
tion of  the  continent ;  while  the  Spanish  provinces,  decaying  and 
declining,  fall  an  easy  prey  to  conquest. 

The  Anglo-Saxon  colonization  left  the  aborigines  of  this  conti- 
nent out  of  its  sympathy,  and  almost  out  of  its  care.  It  left  them 
barbarous  and  savage  ;  and  they  still  remain  so.  They  remain  in 
the  condition  of  wardship  under  our  protection,  but  denied  a 
share  in  our  government.  On  the  other  hand,  the  peculiar  civili- 
zation which  the  colonists  of  Spain  carried  into  her  provinces, 
operated  successfully  in  winning  the  Indians  to  Christianity  and 
partial  civilization.  We  have,  therefore,  this  extraordinary  result : 
That  while  we  exclude  Indians  from  the  rights  of  citizenship  at  home, 
we  have  conquered  the  aborigines  of  Spanish  portions  of  the  conti- 
nent for  the  purpose  of  making  them  citizens,  and  have  extended 
to  them  the  rights  and  franchises  of  citizenship.  It  is  Indians,  sir, 
that  we  have  conquered.  The  population  of  New  Mexico  consists 
of  some  two  thousand,  all  told,  of  the  European  races,  generally 
Anglo-Saxons ;  and  some  ten  thousand  Creoles  or  descendants  of 
the  Spanish  colonists  ;  and  some  ninety  thousand  Indians,  more  or 
less  mixed  in  blood,  but  all  civilized  and  christianized. 

My  motion  is  to  bring  these  peculiar  people  into  the  United 
States,  as  a  state  of  this  Union  ;  and  under  the  circumstances  which 
have  occurred,  it  is  a  motion  upon  which  I  shall  stand,  whoever 


NEW  MEXICO.  125 

may  oppose  it,  and  in  whatever  way,  as  long  as  grace  and  strength 
are  given  me  to  stand  up  for  anything.  But  if  the  question  were 
now  to  arise,  for  the  first  time,  whether  such  a  people  should  be 
invited  to  share  in  the  government  of  this  Union,  I  should  answer  NO. 
If  the  question  were  whether  the  public  treasury  should  pour  forth 
money  to  buy  the  consent  of  such  a  people  to  come  into  the  Union, 
I  should  say  NO.  Still  more,  if  the  proposition  were  to  conquer  such 
a  people  to  bring  them  into  the  Union,  I  should  resist  it  to  the  last. 
But  these  questions  have  all  gone  by.  You  have  conquered  these 
people.  You  have  covenanted  to  bring  them  into  the  Union ;  and 
to  bring  them  into  the  Union,  not  as  a  territory,  not  as  a  province, 
but  as  a  state.  And  you  can  no  longer  protect  or  defend  them  in 
the  rights  they  enjoy,  unless  you  fulfil  that  treaty  immediately  and 
to  the  letter.  They  are,  by  the  testimony  of  all  historians  and  of 
all  travellers,  an  inoffensive,  harmless,  timorous,- and  docile  people. 
They  must  have  protection  and  government.  You  owe  them  both. 
It  is  now  painfully  apparent  that  you  can  secure  them  neither  in 
any  other  way  than  by  allowing  them  the  constitution  of  a  state, 
and  that  immediately,  too.  This  bill  betrays  on  its  face — this 
whole  debate — 'this  entire  proceeding,  betrays  the  truth  of  the  pro- 
position. 

Sir,  New  Mexico  is  obliterated  from  the  memory  of  the  Senate 
and  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  name  no  longer 
to  be  spoken  here.  What  was  the  territory  of  New  Mexico,  as  a 
distinct  territory,  has  ceased  to  be  spoken  of  here,  otherwise  than 
as  an  unoccupied,  an  unappropriated,  an  undefined  part  of  the 
domain  of  the  United  States.  But  New  Mexico  had  just  exactly  the 
same  individuality  and  the  same  rights  in  coming  into  this  Union 
that  Texas  had.  New  Mexico  was  annexed  by  conquest,  and  Texas 
by  treaty.  But  Texas  was  admitted  into  the  Union  by  treaty  as 
a  state  ;  and  New  Mexico  was  admitted  into  the  Union,  after  con- 
quest, by  treaty,  with  the  agreement  that  it  should  be  a  state. 
Now,  there  is  a  question  in  dispute  between  New  Mexico  and 
Texas — a  boundary  question.  That  question  is  vital  to  New  Mex- 
ico, because  the  boundary  claimed  by  Texas  would  include  the 
capital,  and  all  the  most  valuable  and  most  densely  settled  por- 
tions of  New  Mexico.  Congress  is  engaged  in  settling  that  boun- 
dary question,  and  proposes  to  settle  it  by  a  commission.  Congress 
appoints  commissioners  to  treat  with  Texas,  and  invites  Texas  to 
appoint  commissioners,  equaLin  authority  with  those  of  the  United 

VOL.  1—9. 


126  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

States.  So  far,  so  well.  But  here  is  New  Mexico,  the  other  party 
in  interest,  the  equal  of  Texas  in  rights,  in  justice,  in  position,  in 
everything  except  what  you  withhold  from  her — the  sovereignty 
of  a  state.  She  is  unrepresented  here.  She  has  no  voice  here. 
And  while  she  has  no  representative,  no  voice  here,  you  deny  her 
a  share  in  the  commission.  I  ask  you  now  to  fulfil  your  treaty 
obligations.  Bring  New  Mexico  in  here  as  a  state,  that  she  may 
meet  Texas  as  a  state.  Let  her  take  part  in  this  debate.  Let  us 
hear  her  present  her  wrongs  and  her  rights.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
she  will  speak  as  eloquently,  and  with  as  much  justice  on  her  side, 
as  the  state  of  Texas  does  on  her  side.  Bring  New  Mexico  in  here. 
Before  you  decide  upon  her  fate,  give  her  a  hearing.  She  appeals 
to  you.  Strike,  if  you  will,  but  hear. 

If  you  bring  New  Mexico  in  as  a  state,  you  will  then  have  a 
security  that  justice  can  be  done  by  the  commissioners.  Amend- 
ments which  I  have  prepared,  and  shall  submit,  provide  for  the 
appointment  of  commissioners  by  New  Mexico. 

When  Texas  and  New  Mexico  shall  have  appointed  commis- 
sioners equal  in  number  and  in  authority,  the  United  States  will  then 
stand,  where  the  parental  government  ought  to  stand,  equal  and 
impartial  between  the  two  contesting  parties.  Who  can  object, 
who  will  object,  to  a  proposition  conceived  in  fairness  and  justice 
like  this?  How  can  you  pass  this  bill,  with  this  commission  of 
boundaries,  excluding  New  Mexico,  without  denying  to  New 
Mexico  the  justice  you  are  so  anxious  to  award  to  Texas  ? 

But,  sir,  bring  New  Mexico  into  the  Union,  and  you  will  no 
longer  have  any  need  of  a  commission  at  all.  The  Constitution 
and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  provide  a  remedy  for  the  settle- 
ment of  this  question,  without  the  interposition  of  the  executive 
arm  of  the  United  States,  and  without  any  commission  whatever, 
and  without  any  delay.  Texas  will  find  a  respondent  whenever 
she  chooses  to  file  her  bill  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  to  assert  a  claim  to  the  territory  in  dispute ;  and  New 
Mexico,  before  that  august  tribunal,  will  maintain  an  attitude  of 
equality  and  independence.  There  the  law  of  the  land  will  regard 
her  as  equal  to  Texas,  equal  in  position  even  to  the  United  States 
themselves.  Here,  her  representative,  appointed  by  herself,  is 
seen  only,  as  he  presents  himself  unobtrusively  in  the  lobbies  and 
corridors  of  the  capitol — refused  admission  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives as  a  delegate.  In  the  Supreme  Court,  New  Mexico 


NEW  MEXICO.  127 

would  be  an  acknowledged  party,  allowed  to  speak  for  and  defend 
herself.  Senators,  the  fact  is  before  you ;  it  is  known  to  you,  con- 
fessed by  you,  and  acknowledged  to  the  world ;  it  has  been 
acknowledged  in  this  very  debate  to-day,  that  the  people  of  New 
Mexico  are  on  their  way  here  with  a  constitution,  borne  by  two 
senators  and  one  representative,  to  lay  open  their  rights  and  their 
wrongs  before  you.  You,  on  the  other  hand,  are  consuming  the 
long  hours  of  this  day  and  of  every  day,  in  hastening  the  passage 
of  this  bill,  in  endeavoring  to  anticipate  the  arrival  of  New  Mexico 
by  the  passage  of  this  bill,  in  order  that  you  may  tell  her  the  door 
was  shut  before  she  came. 

This  is  the  justice,  this  the  magnanimity  of  the  United  States  of 
America.  This  is  the  magnanimity  which  is  shown  to  a  con- 
quered, a  defenceless,  and  a  harmless  people.  Sir,  there  is  not  in 
the  history  of  the  Roman  Empire  an  ambition  for  aggrandizement 
so  marked  as  that  which  has  characterized  the  American  people. 
There  is  not  in  its  whole  history  a  transaction  so  unjust  to  a  con- 
quered people  as  this.  But  what  is  the  apology  for  it  ?  Is  there 
any  need  or  cause  for  such  intemperate  haste,  such  violent  haste  ? 
The  question  we  are  upon  is  not  about  New  Mexico.  It  does  not 
concern  New  Mexico.  New  Mexico  is  a  stranger  to  it.  The 
question  really  before  us,  from  the  beginning,  has  been,  not  the 
settlement  of  the  boundary  of  New  Mexico,  but  the  right  of  Cali- 
fornia to  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  Detach,  then,  this  question 
of  New  Mexico  and  her  boundary  from  the  bill,  and  leave  the 
bill  to  contain  only  its  legitimate  subject,  that  of  California  alone. 
You  will  thus  secure  New  Mexico  a  right  to  be  heard.  Having 
heard  her,  if  you  pronounce  against  her,  she  must  submit,  because 
from  that  decision  there  can  be  no  appeal. 

But  another  apology  is  offered  for  violating  the  rights  of  New 
Mexico.  You  desire  to  preserve  peace,  to  prevent  civil  war  on 
the  banks  of  the  Rio  Grande.  But  how  can  you  preserve  peace 
by  such  a  measure  as  this  ?  You  exclude  New  Mexico  from  the 
commission.  You  deny  her  a  hearing.  You  reject  fter  constitu- 
tion, even  before  it  is  presented.  All  this  you  do  now.  After  the 
lapse  of  a  year,  or  two  or  three  years,  your  commission  will  come 
back,  bringing  with  it  all  the  excitement  of  this  hour,  with  excite- 
ment increased  beyond  your  control,  by  new  and  additional  injus- 
tice. Sir,  those  who  make  peace  in  this  way,  are  like  him 

"  Who  stems  the  stream  with  sand, 
Or  binds  the  flame  with  flaxen  band 


128  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

There  will  be  no  peace  until,  I  do  not  say  justice,  but  until  a 
hearing  is  given  to  New  Mexico.  I  repeat,  that  I  know  the  Con- 
stitution of  New  Mexico  is  not  here.  It  is  not  her  fault,  nor  mine. 
It  is  enough  that  she  has  a  constitution,  a  constitution  of  her  own 
choice,  and  that  the  fact  is  known.  It  is  well  known.  It  is  his- 
torical. Her  constitution  is  known  to  the  world,  and  just  as  well 
and  as  distinctly  known  to  us  as  the  constitution  of  any  state  in 
this  Union.  An  election  has  been  appointed  to  take  the  sense  of 
the  people  of  New  Mexico  upon  adopting  that  constitution.  My 
amendment  provides  for  ascertaining  officially  whether  it  has  been 
adopted ;  and  it  provides  for  admitting  New  Mexico  as  a  state,  as 
soon  as  the  constitution  thus  adopted  shall  have  been  brought  here 
and  filed  in  the  archives  of  the  Department  of  State.  Although  it 
would  be  more  regular  to  have  that  constitution  before  us  officially, 
yet  if  the  question  must  be  whether  New  Mexico  shall  be  admitted 
now,  waiving  the  formality  of  authentic  documentary  testimony, 
or  excluded  forever,  then  I  say,  admit  her  now  conditionally — 
upon  her  constitution,  already  known  and  adopted,  being  presented. 
No  one  can  deny  that  if  the  commission  proposed  to  be  instituted 
shall  be  executed,  that  it  will  involve  the  imminent  risk  of  the 
rejection  of  New  Mexico  forever,  by  reason  of  the  absorption  of 
the  most  important  part  of  that  territory  and  that  community  by 
the  state  of  Texas. 

Now,  it  is  due  to  myself  to  say,  that  while  I  present  this  claim  in 
behalf  of  New  Mexico,  it  has  not  been  my  choice,  nor  my  wish, 
to  bring  this  great  question  into  this  bill,  so  called,  of  "  compro- 
mise and  adjustment."  Even  the  admission  of  New  Mexico  as  a 
state,  under  the  circumstances,  by  this  bill,  would  be  in  conflict 
with  the  arguments  which  I  have  used  against  it.  But  if  the 
bill  is  to  proceed  and  be  passed  with  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  Senator  from  Maine,  [Mr.  BRADBURY,]  then  I  ask  you  to  adopt 
my  amendment  for  the  protection  and  security  of  New  Mexico. 
I  do  not  seek  to  affirm  or  deny  the  boundaries  of  New  Mexico, 
as  she  has  defined  them  in  her  constitution.  I  do  not  desire  to 
disturb  the  boundary  question.  My  amendment  leaves  the  boun- 
dary question  to  the  commissioners,  only  providing  that  New 
Mexico  shall  be  represented  in  the  commission. 

Nor  do  I  intend  to  involve  the  fate  of  New  Mexico  in  the  fate 
of  this  bill.  My  proposition  is  only  an  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Senator  from  Maine ;  and  I  shall  in  any  event  vote 


NEW  MEXICO.  129 

against  that  and  against  the  whole  bill.  But  if  it  pass  in  the 
form  contemplated  by  the  Senator  from  Maine,  New  Mexico  will 
be  protected  if  mine  is  adopted.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  bill 
shall  be  lost  altogether,  New  Mexico  will  have  lost  nothing  by 
means  of  the  effort  made  by  me  in  her  behalf. 

Several  senators  having  spoken,  Mr.  SEWARD  replied — 

If  there  is  any  proposition  I  have  ever  made,  any  measure  I 
have  ever  proposed,  which  I  am  willing  to  stand  by  here,  before 
the  country  and  before  the  world,  it  is  the  proposition  I  have  now 
submitted.  Therefore,  though  I  stand  alone,  I  shall  be  content, 
convinced  that  I  stand  right. 

I  do  not  propose  to  reply  to  what  is  personal  in  the  remarks  of 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Maryland.  I  have  nothing  of  a  per- 
sonal character  to  say.  There  is  no  man  in  this  land  who  is  of 
sufficient  importance  to  this  country  and  to  mankind,  to  justify  his 
consumption  of  five  minutes  of  the  time  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  with  personal  explanations  relating  to  himself. 
When  the  senator  made  his  remarks,  I  rose  to  express  to  him  the 
fact  that  he  was  under  a  misapprehension.  The  speeches  which 
I  have  made  here,  under  a  rule  of  the  Senate,  are  recorded,  and 
what  is  recorded  has  gone  before  the  people,  and  will  go,  worthy 
or  not,  into  history.  I  leave  them  to  mankind.  I  stand  by  what 
I  have  said.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  upon  that  subject. 

The  senator  proposes  to  expel  me.  I  am  ready  to  meet  that  trial 
too  ;  and  if  I  shall  be  expelled,  I  shall  not  be  the  first  man  sub- 
jected to  punishment  for  maintaining  that  there  is  a  power  higher 
than  human  law,  and  that  power  delights  in  justice ;  that  rulers, 
whether  despots  or  elected  rulers  of  a  free  people,  are  bound  to 
administer  justice  for  the  benefit  of  society.  Senators,  when  they 
please  to  bring  me  for  trial,  or  otherwise,  before  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  will  find  a  clear  and  open  field.  I  ask  no  other 
defence  than  the  speeches  upon  which  they  propose  to  condemn 
me.  The  speeches  will  read  for  themselves,  and  they  will  need  no 
comment  from  me. 

Mr.  President,  the  objection  which  is  made  to  the  proposition 
which  I  have  submitted  to  the  Senate  is  this :  That  it  may  bring 
into  the  United  States  a  royal  or  kingly  government.  Sir,  here  is 
the  Constitution  of  New  Mexico,  sent  to  me  by  one  who  attended 
the  convention  of  New  Mexico.  I  have  just  as  good  evidence  to 
satisfy  me  that  this  is  the  real  Constitution  of  New  Mexico,  as  I 


130  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

had  to  satisfy  me  that  the  honorable  Senator  from  Maryland  had 
been  elected  a  member  of  this  branch  of  the  legislature  when  I 
heard  his  credentials  read. 

Now,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  answer  the  only  argument  of  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Maryland  against  the  admission  of  New 
Mexico,  which  is,  that  the  Constitution  of  New  Mexico  may  be 
one  creating  a  kingly  government,  if  the  honorable  senator  does 
not  disdain  to  examine  a  constitution  not  officially  laid  before  the 
Senate.  It  begins  with  these  words : 

"  We,  the  people  of  New  Mexico,  in  order  to  establish  justice,  promote  the  welfare, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity :" 

This,  so  far,  is  the  language  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Then  it  proceeds — 

"  Acknowledging  with  grateful  hearts  the  goodness  of  the  Sovereign  Ruler  of  the 
universe,  and  imploring  His  aid  and  direction  in  its  accomplishment,  do  ordain  and  estab- 
lish the  following  Constitution :" 

We  see  that  here  are  a  people  who  acknowledge  a  higher  power 
than  the  Constitution. 

These  people  of  New  Mexico  then  say  they  have  "  established 
a  government  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  justice,  securing  the 
blessings  of  liberty  for  themselves  and  for  posterity,  and  that 
they  acknowledge  the  superintending  power  of  the  Sovereign 
Ruler  of  the  universe,  and  invoke  His  blessing." 

Now,  let  us  see  what  kind  of  government  they  make.  They 
form  themselves  into  a  free  and  independent  state,  by  the  name  of 
New  Mexico.  The  next  question  is,  whether  they  have  established 
a  "  kingly  "  government.  This  may  be  learned  from  their  declara- 
tion of  rights : 

"  All  men  being  born  equally  free  and  independent,  and  having  certain  natural,  inhe- 
rent, and  inalienable  rights,  amongst  which  are  the  enjoying  and  defending  of  life  and 
liberty,  the  acquirement,  possession,  and  protection  of  property,  and  the  pursuit  of 
and  attainment  of  happiness :  therefore,  no  male  person  shall  be  held  by  law  to  serve 
any  person  as  a  servant,  slave,  or  apprentice,  after  he  arrives  at  the  age  of  twenty-one 
years  ;  nor  female  in  like  manner,  after  she  arrives  at  the  age  of  eighteen  years  ;  unless 
they  be  bound  by  their  own  consent,  after  they  arrive  at  such  age,  or  are  bound  by  law 
for  punishment  of  crime. 

"  All  power  is  inherent  in  the  people  ;  all  free  governments  are  founded  in  their 
authority ;  they  have  therefore  an  inalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  institute  govern- 
ment, to  alter  and  reform,  or  to  totally  change  the  same,  when  their  safety  or  happiness 
requires  it." 

"Well,  sir,  so  far  this  is  sound  republicanism  ;  it  is  the  republi- 
canism of  the  British  Constitutions  of  1640,  of  1688,  and  the- 
American  Constitution  of  1776.  "Well,  have  they  established  a 


NEW  MEXICO.  1  31 

king,  with  an  hereditary  aristocracy  to  exercise  the  powers  of 
government  ?     No,  sir  :  quite  the  contrary : 

"  The  powers  of  the  government  of  the  state  of  New  Mexico  shall  be  divided  into 
three  distinct  departments,  and  each  of  them  confided  to  separate  bodies  of  magistracy, 
to  wit:  Those  which  are  legislative,  to  one;  those  which  are  judicial,  to  another;  and 
those  which  are  executive,  to  another. 

"  No  person,  or  collection  of  persons,  being  of  one  of  those  departments,  shall  exercise 
any  power  properly  belonging  to  either  of  the  others,  except  in  those  instances  herein- 
after expressly  directed  or  permitted. 

'•  The  legislative  powers  of  the  state  shall  be  vested  in  two  distinct  branches  ;  one  to 
be  styled  the  Senate,  the  other  the  House  of  Representatives  ;  and  both  together  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  Mexico.  The  style  of  all  laws  shall  be,  Be  it  enacted  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  Mexico. 

"  The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  chosen  by  the  qualified  elec- 
tors, and  their  term  of  office  shall  be  two  years  from  the  day  of  their  general  election  ; 
and  the  session  of  the  legislature  shall  be  held  annually,  at  such  time  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

"  The  senators  shall  be  chosen  by  the  qualified  electors  for  the  term  of  four  years,  and 
shall  be  divided  by  lot  into  two  classes,  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be. 

"The  governor  and  lieutenant-governor  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified  electors  of  the 
state,  at  the  time  and  places  of  choosing  members  of  the  legislature. 

"  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall  be  appointed  by  the  governor,  with  the 
consent  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  in  joint  ballot ;  and  shall  hold  their  offices 
for  the  term  of  six  years,  and  until  their  successors  be  duly  nominated  and  qualified." 

"  A  general  diffusion  of  knowledge  being  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  people,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  of  this  state  to  make  suit- 
able provisions  for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  public  schools. 

"  The  legislature  shall,  at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable,  establish  free  schools  through- 
out the  state,  and  shall  furnish  means  for  their  support  by  taxation  ;  and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  tiie  legislature  to  set  apart  not  less  than  one-twelfth  of  the  annual  revenue  of  the 
state,  derived  from  taxation,  as  a  perpetual  fund,  which  fund  shall  be  appropriated  to 
the  support  of  free  public  schools,  and  no  law  shall  be  made  diverting  said  fund  to  any 
other  use. 

"  Every  male  person  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  or  upwards,  (Africans  or  the 
descendants  of  Africans,  and  uncivilized  Indians,  excepted,)  belonging  to  either  of  the 
following  classes,  and  who  shall  have  resided  in  this  state  for  six  months  next  preceding 
any  election,  shall  be  a  qualified  elector  at  such  election : 

"  First.  Citizens  of  the  United  States  residing  in  this  state. 

"  Second.  Persons  who  were  elected  to  remain  citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico  accord- 
ing to  article  eighth  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  made  and  concluded  between  the  United 
States  of  North  America  and  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  at  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  and  rati- 
fied by  the  Congress  of  die  United  States  the  thirteenth  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1848,  and 
who  shall  have  taken,  at  least  six  months  preceding  any  election,  before  some  judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  this  state,  or  before  a  clerk  of  any  court  of  record  in  this  state,  an 
oath  renouncing  and  abjuring  all  allegiance  or  fealty  to  the  government  of  the  Republic 
of  Mexico,  and  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  this  state. 

"  Third.  Persons  of  foreign  birth,  not  referred  to  in  the  two  preceding  clauses,  who  shall 
have  declared  their  intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States,  conformably  to  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  naturalization. 

"  No  soldier  of  the  army  of  the  United  States  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  in  this  state." 

This,  then,  is  the  Constitution  of  New  Mexico.  It  is  a  repub- 
lican constitution,  and  the  argument  of  the  Senator  from  Maryland 
against  the  admission  of  New  Mexico  is  refuted. 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


INDEMNITIES   FOE  FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS. 

JANUARY   21,  1851. 

WHILE  no  lawful  public  engagement  ought  ever  to  be  broken, 
debts  founded  on  the  appropriation  of  private  property  to  the 
general  use,  and  especially  to  the  discharge  of  obligations  incurred 
in  the  war  of  the  revolution,  are  practically  guarantied  by  the 
Constitution,  and  are  stamped  with  a  peculiar  equity.  They  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  held  as  sacred  as  the  safety  of  the  state  itself.  The 
claims  before  us  fall  within  that  class  of  inviolable  obligations. 

The  peace  of  Paris,  in  1763,  reduced  the  broad  possessions  of 
France  in  America  to  Cayenne  on  the  continent,  and  the  islands 
of  St.  Domingo,  Martinique,  Guadaloupe,  Marigalante,  St.  Pierre, 
Miquelon,  Grenada,  and  Dominica,  in  the  Atlantic  ocean.  Great 
Britain,  at  the  same  time,  acquired  the  Canadas,  together  with  the 
vast  region  of  New  France,  and  thus  secured  to  herself  an  empire 
extending  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  Arctic  circle. 

In  February,  1T7S,  the  new  thirteen  American  states  were  strug- 
gling to  disengage  themselves  from  that  empire.  It  was  a  conflict 
ripened  and  final  between  Great  Britain  to  retain  supreme  domi- 
nion, and  the  United  States  to  acquire  absolute  sovereignty  and 
independence.  Great  Britain,  so  lately  victorious  over  her  great 
continental  rival,  was  now  confessed  mistress  of  the  seas.  The 
United  States  had,  then,  a  free  population  scarcely  surpassing  their 
present  number  of  slaves.  Their  sovereignty  had  been  assumed 
only  nineteen  months  before,  and  had  not  yet  been  recognized  by 
any  foreign  nation,  nor  even  by  the  least  of  the  hundred  savage 
tribes  whom  the  wilderness  protected  within  and  around  their  bor- 
ders. They  had  no  navy,  mercantile  marine,  fortifications,  con- 
stitution, nor  even  confirmed  confederation.  The  hopes  which 
had  been  kindled  by  early  successes  were  almost  extinguished  by 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  133 

recent  and  successive  disasters.  Boston  had,  indeed,  been  regained, 
and  Burgoyne  had  given  back  the  passes  of  the  north ;  but  the 
enemy  yet  retained  New  York,  and  now  victorious  over  Wash- 
ington in  successive  pitched  battles,  on  fields  chosen  by  himself, 
on  the  Brandywine  and  at  Germantown,  was  marching  unob- 
structed toward  Philadelphia,  then  the  American  capital.  The 
precious  metals  seemed  to  have  hidden  themselves  again  in  the 
earth,  and  paper  credits  had  everywhere  collapsed.  The  chaplain 
of  Congress  implored  Washington  "  to  give  over  the  ungodly  war 
in  which  he  was  engaged."  The  discomfited  army,  without  re- 
cruits, pay,  or  even  sufficient  food,  had  tracked  their  way  with 
bleeding  feet  into  winter  quarters  on  the  Schuylkill.  Two  hun- 
dred officers  had  resigned  and  retired ;  the  hospitals  and  the 
neighboring  farmers'  firesides  were  crowded  by  soldiers  without 
blankets  or  shoes ;  and  the  great  leader,  in  the  midst  of  discon- 
tents fast  growing  into  mutiny,  announced  to  the  loosely  consti- 
tuted legislature,  which  was  now  convulsed  with  distrust  and 
faction,  that  "  unless  some  great  and  capital  change  should  occur, 
the  troops  under  his  care  must  starve,  dissolve,  or  disperse." 

A  great  and  capital  change  did  occur.  Allied  armies,  fresh, 
vigorous,  and  well  appointed,  co-operating  with  a  gallant  fleet, 
met  the  invader,  and  his  surrender  at  Yorktown  opened  the  way  to 
peace,  sovereignty,  and  independence.  An  auspicious  star  had 
led  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee,  the  first  of  American  ambassadors, 
to  Paris  ;  and  it  was  an  alliance  with  France,  a  hereditary  foe,  but 
thenceforth  a  fraternal  nation,  that  wrought  out  this  great  and 
capital  change,  and  effected  that  triumphant  consummation. 

The  courses  of  the  allies  immediately  separated,  and  thence- 
forward widely  diverged.  The  United  States  completed  their 
Union  in  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  established  their  constitution 
on  the  unremovable  foundations  on  which  loyal  citizens  hope,  and 
wise  men  throughout  the  world  believe,  that  it  stands  firmly  fixed 
forever  ;  while,  by  well-directed  devotion  of  the  national  revenues 
to  the  payment  of  their  debts  and  the  establishment  of  their 
credit,  and  a  wise  cultivation  of  arts  and  industry,  they  prepared 
the  way  for  permanent  and  extended  empire. 

France,  on  the  contrary,  began  the  descent  toward  revolution 
in  the  very  year  when  the  United  States  emerged  from  its  danger- 
ous labyrinths ;  and  thereafter,  distracted  herself,  for  thirteen 
years  she  convulsed  all  Europe. 


134 

It  was  during  tliis  period  that  these  claims  for  indemnities  for 
spoliations  arose. 

The  political  and  commercial  relations  between  France  and  the 
United  States  had  been  defined  by  treaties. 

First.  The  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce,  the  most  ancient 
treaty  of  the  United  States,  executed  on  the  6th  of  February,  1778. 
It  stipulated  [Art.  1]  a  firm,  inviolable,  universal,  and  perpetual 
peace.  [Art.  2.]  That  all  commercial  privileges  to  be  granted  by 
either  party  to  any  state  should  become  common  to  the  other  con- 
tracting party.  [Arts.  3  and  4.]  The  most  favored  footing  for  each 
party  in  the  other's  ports.  [Arts.  5  and  6.]  Reciprocal  protection 
to  vessels  in  their  respective  jurisdictions.  [Art.  8.]  The  aid  of 
France  in  negotiations  by  the  United  States  with  the  Barbary 
powers.  [Art.  12.]  The  mutual  exhibition  of  passports  and  certi- 
ficates of  cargo  in  cases  of  suspicious  vessels  making  the  ports  of 
an  enemy  of  one  of  the  parties.  [Art.  14.]  That  goods  of  either 
party  should  be  forfeited  if  laden  in  ships  of  an  enemy  of  the 
other.  [Art.  17.]  That  armed  vessels  of  one  party  might  freely 
carry  prizes  into  the  other's  ports,  without  paying  duties  to  courts, 
and  might  freely  depart  to  the  places  designated  in  their  commis- 
sions, and  that  neither  party  should  give  shelter  to  captors  of  prizes 
from  the  other.  [Art.  22.]  That  privateers  of  an  enemy  of  one 
party  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  fitted  out  or  to  sell  prizes  in  the 
ports  of  the  other.  [Art.  23.]  That  free  ships  should  make  free 
goods.  [Art.  24.]  Defined  articles  contraband  of  war,  and  ex- 
cepted  from  that  class  many  articles  not  free  by  the  law  of  nations. 
[Art.  25.]  In  case  one  party  should  be  at  war,  the  vessels  of  the 
other  should  be  furnished  with  sea-letters,  or  passports,  and  with 
certificates  containing  the  particulars  of  the  cargo,  so  as  to  relieve 
the  rigors  of  search. 

Secondly.  The  Treaty  of  Alliance,  concluded  on  the  same  day, 
February  6, 1778.  In  this  treaty,  the  parties  recited  the  execution 
of  the  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce,  declared  that  they  had 
considered  the  means  of  strengthening  their  engagements,  par- 
ticularly in  case  Great  Britain,  in  resentment  against  those  engage- 
ments, should  break  the  peace  with  France,  either  by  direct 
hostilities,  or  by  hindering  her  commerce  and  navigation,  contrary 
to  the  rights  of  nations  and  the  peace  subsisting  between  those 
countries ;  and  that  therefore  they  had  agreed,  that  [Art.  1]  if 
war  should  break  out  between  France  and  Great  Britain  during 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  135 

the  continuance  of  the  existing  war  between  the  United  States 
and  England,  that  then  his  Majesty  and  the  United  States  would 
make  it  a  common  cause,  and  aid  each  other  mutually  with  their 
good  offices,  their  counsel,  and  their  forces,  as  was  becoming  to 
good  and  faithful  allies.  [Art.  2.]  That  the  essential  and  direct 
end  of  their  defensive  alliance  was  to  maintain  effectually  the 
liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence,  absolute  and  unlimited,  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  as  well  in  matters  of  -government 
as  of  commerce.  [Arts.  3  and  4.]  That  each  party  should  make 
every  effort  to  attain  that  end ;  and  that  they  should,  in  every 
possible  way,  act  in  concert,  and  with  promptness  and  good  faith. 
[Arts.  5,  6,  and  7.]  That  France  renounced,  in  favor  of  the  United 
States,  conquests  that  might  be  made  by  the  allied  armies,  except 
the  British  islands  in  or  near  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  [Arts.  8  and  9.] 
That  neither  party  should  conclude  a  truce  or  peace  without  the 
other's  consent ;  and  that  neither  party  should  demand  any  com- 
pensation from  the  other.  [Art.  11.]  The  two  parties  guarantied 
mutually,  from  the  date  of  the  treaty,  forever  against  all  other 
powers,  to  wit : — the  United  States  to  his  Most  Christian  Majesty 
the  then  existing  possessions  of  the  crown  of  France  in  America, 
as  well  as  those  it  might  acquire  by  the  treaty  of  peace.  And  his 
Most  Christian  Majesty,  on  his  part,  guarantied  to  the  United 
States  their  liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence,  absolute  and 
unlimited,  and  also  their  possessions,  and  the  additions  or  con- 
quests that  the  confederation  might  obtain  during  the  war,  con- 
formably to  the  5th  and  6th  articles.  [Art.  12.]  In  order  to  fix 
more  precisely  the  application  of  the  preceding  article,  the  con- 
tracting parties  declared  that,  in  case  of  a  rupture  between  France 
and  England,  the  reciprocal  guaranty  declared  in  that  article 
should  have  its  full  force  and  effect  the  moment  such  rupture 
should  break  out ;  and  if  such  rupture  should  not  take  place,  the 
mutual  obligations  of  the  said  guaranty  should  not  commence  until 
the  moment  of  the  cessation  of  the  war  then  existing  between  the 
United  States  and  England  should  have  ascertained  their  posses- 
sions. 

Thirdly.  The  Treaty  called  the  Consuls  Convention,  concluded 
on  the  14th  of  November,  1788,  containing  the  following  articles  : 

"  ART.  8.  The  consuls  or  vice-consuls  shall  exercise  police  over  all  the  vessels  of  their 
respective  nations ;  and  shall  have,  on  board  the  said  vessels,  all  power  and  jurisdiction 
in  civil  matters,  in  all  the  disputes  which  may  there  arise.  They  shall  have  an  entire 
inspection  over  the  said  vessels,  their  crews,  and  the  changes  and  substitutions  therein  to 


136  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

be  made ;  for  which  purpose  they  may  go  on  board  the  said  vessels  whenever  they  may 
judge  it  necessary." 

"  ART.  12.  All  differences  and  suits  between  the  subjects  of  the  Most  Christian  King  in 
the  United  States,  or  between  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  within  the  dominions  of 
the  Most  Christian  King,  and  particularly  all  disputes  relative  to  the  wages  and  terms 
of  engagement  of  the  crews  of  their  respective  vessels,  and  all  the  differences,  of  what 
ever  nature  they  be,  which  may  arise  between  the  privates  of  the  said  crews,  or  between 
captains  of  different  vessels  of  their  nations,  shall  be  determined  by  their  respective  con- 
suls. The  officers  of  the  country,  civil  or  military,  shall  not  interfere  therein,  or  take  any 
part  whatever  in  the  matter ;  and  the  appeals  from  the  said  consular  tribunals  shall  be 
carried  before  the  tribunals  of  France  or  of  the  United  States." 

The  French  ^Revolution  began  in  1T89,  and  in  1793  it  became  a 
general  European  war,  in  which  France,  while  treading  continually 
upon  the  fiercest  internal  fires,  bared  her  head  to  all  the  thunder- 
bolts of  despotism. 

"Washington,  by  the  serene  tranquillity  and  majestic  justice  of 
his  character,  repressed  the  sympathies  of  the  United  States  for 
France  and  the  republican  cause,  and  sent  forth  his  memorable 
proclamation :  "  Whereas,"  said  the  President,  "  it  appears  that 
a  state  of  war  exists  between  Austria,  Prussia,  Sardinia,  Great 
Britain,  and  the  United  Netherlands,  of  the  one  part,  and  France, 
on  the  other,  and  the  duty  and  interest  of  the  United  States 
require  that  they  should,  with  sincerity  and  good  faith,  adopt  and 
pursue  a  conduct  friendly  and  impartial  towards  the  belligerent 
powers,  I  have  therefore  thought  fit,  by  these  presents,  to  declare 
the  disposition  of  the  United  States  to  observe  the  conduct  afore- 
said." 

Ko  less  a  character  than  Washington  could  have  assumed  neu- 
trality in  such  a  crisis.  Kor  could  even  he  protect  it  in  that  fierce 
conflict  of  armed  opinion  which  raged  throughout  Europe,  as  if 
all  its  separate  and  widely  different  states  had  been  one  entire  yet 
distracted  commonwealth.  The  cost  of  supplies  rose  two,  three, 
and  four-fold,  under  the  demands  of  the  belligerent  nations.  The 
United  States  put  in  motion,  for  once,  and  all  at  once,  the  three 
wheels  of  industry — Production,  Manufacture,  and  Exchange — 
and  wealth  flowed  in  upon  them  like  a  spring-tide.  The  com- 
batants, relapsing  into  the  morality  of  the  Barbary  powers,  seized 
and  confiscated  neutral  ships  and  their  cargoes.  American  com- 
merce was  thus  suddenly  checked,  and^  the  revenues  it  yielded 
rapidly  declined.  Jefferson,  then  Secretary  of  State,  met  the 
emergency  with  a  declaration — 

"  I  have  it  in  charge  from  the  President  to  assure  the  merchants  of  the  UniM  States 
concerned  in  foreign  commerce  or  navigation,  that  attention  will  be  paid  to  any  injuries 
they  may  suffer  on  the  high  seas  or  in  foreign  countries,  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  137 

or  to  existing  treaties ;  and  that,  on  their  forwarding  hither  well-authenticated  evidences 
of  the  same,  proper  proceedings  will  be  adopted  for  their  relief." 

The  American  merchants,  thus  stimulated,  prosecuted  more 
diligently  than  before  a  trade  which  yielded  enticing  profits, 
while  its  risks  seemed  to  have  been  underwritten  by  their  country. 
The  maritime  injuries  suffered  by  Americans  at  the  hands  of 
France  in  the  course  of  the  war,  were  at  the  time  classified  as 
follows : 

First.  Spoliations  and  mal-treatment  of  the  vessels  of  American 
citizens  at  sea,  by  French  ships  of  war  and  privateers. 

Second.  A  long  and  distressing  embargo,  which  detained  many 
American  vessels  at  Bordeaux  in  1793  and  1794. 

Third.  The  dishonor  of  bills  and  other  evidences  of  debt  due  to 
American  citizens  for  supplies  furnished,  at  the  request  of  France, 
to  herself  and  to  her  West  India  Islands,  in  a  period  of  famine 
and  civil  war. 

Fourth.  The  seizure  or  forced  sales  of  the  cargoes  of  American 
vessels,  and  the  appropriation  of  them  to  public  uses. 

Fifth.  The  non-performance  of  contracts  for  supplies,  made  by 
the  French  authorities  with  American  citizens. 

Sixth.  The  condemnation  of  American  vessels  and  cargoes  under 
marine  ordinances  of  France  incompatible  with  treaties. 

Seventh.  Captures,  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  com- 
mercial treaty,  of  American  vessels  laden  with  provisions,  bound 
to  the  ports  of  the  enemy. 

To  elucidate  the  nature  of  these  injuries  : 

On  the  9th  of  May,  1793,  France  authorized  armed  vessels  and 
privateers  to  arrest  and  bring  into  her  ports  neutral  ships,  laden 
wholly  or  in  part  either  with  provisions  belonging  to  neutral  na- 
tions and  destined  to  an  enemy's  ports,  or  with  merchandize  be- 
longing to  an  enemy,  and  declared  that  such  merchandize  should 
be  lawful  prize,  while  such  provisions  should  be  paid  for  according 
to  their  value  at  the  place  of  destination,  and  just  indemnification 
should  be  made  for  the  freights  and  the  detention  of  the  ships. 
This  decree  was  alternately  rescinded  as  to  the  United  States, 
restored,  rescinded  again,  and  finally  restored  and  left  in  full 
effect. 

American  vessels  known  and  confessed,  but  found  without  pass- 
port or  certificate,  in  the  exact  form  prescribed  by  the  22d  article 


138        SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  the  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce,  were,  by  a  decree  of  the 
3d  of  March,  1797,  declared  lawful  prizes. 

On  the  2d  of  July,  1796,  France  decreed  that  she  would  treat 
neutral  vessels,  either  as  to  confiscations,  searches,  or  captures,  in 
the  same  manner  that  they  suffered  the  English  to  treat  them — a 
decree  that  punished  with  violence  the  endurance  of  aggression 
committed  by  another,  while  it  confided  in  the  discretion  of  the 
second  corsair  to  determine  who,  by  having  become  victims  of  the 
first,  had  offended  against  so  extraordinary  a  code. 

On  the  29th  of  October,  1799,  France  decreed  that  any  native 
of  an  allied  or  even  of  a  neutral  country,  found  wearing  a  hostile 
commission,  or  serving  in  an  enemy's  crew,  should  suffer  as  a 
pirate,  without  being  allowed  to  allege  duress,  by  violence,  menace, 
or  otherwise. 

Besides  one  hundred  and  three  vessels  which  were  detained  by 
the  embargo  at  Bordeaux,  there  is  a  list  of  six  hundred  and  nine- 
teen which  were  captured  and  plundered  before  1800.  The  true 
number  of  spoliations  is  said  to  have  been  three  times  greater. 
Cotemporaneous  expositions  by  the  authorities  of  the  United 
States  placed  the  aggregate  of  damages  sustained  by  the  merchants 
at  more  than  twenty  millions  of  dollars.  Of  these  damages,  por- 
tions amounting  to  about  ten  millions  of  dollars,  were  adjusted  and 
paid  chiefly  under  the  convention  of  1800,  finally  carried  into 
effect  by  the  Louisiana  treaty  in  1803.  The  exact  amount  of 
damages  due,  however,  is  not  now  in  question.  The  bill  before 
the  Senate  confines  itself  to  unadjusted  claims  to  be  actually 
proved,  and  awards  only  five  millions,  without  interest,  in  satis- 
faction of  all  that  shall  be  established. 

The  United  States  diligently  prosecuted  the  claims  from  1793 
to  1800,  but  France  did  not  so  long  remain  a  mere  respondent. 

Edmund  C.  Genet,  her  minister,  claimed,  and  actually  assumed 
to  fit  out  privateers  in  American  ports,  to  cruise  against  Britisli 
vessels.  Under  the  22d  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Com- 
merce, he  demanded  what,  in  fact,  were  admiralty  powers,  for 
French  consuls  in  American  ports,  by  virtue  of  article  8th  of  the 
Consular  Convention ;  while,  under  color  of  the  17th  article  of  the 
Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce,  he  insisted  that  French  vessels 
had  a  right  to  sell  their  prizes  free  from  all  duties  in  American 
ports ;  and,  finally,  he  complained  that  British  ships  were  per- 
mitted to  take  French  goods  out  of  American  vessels,  while  a 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  139 

reciprocal  right  was  denied  to  the  French  marine.  All  these  com- 
plaints, however,  were  disallowed,  upon  grounds  which  will  not 
now  be  questioned. 

Nor  were  the  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  less  disturbed.  Besides  having  offended  earlier  and  more 
flagrantly  than  France  against  our  neutrality,  Great  Britain  still,  in 
violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Independence,  held  the  military  posts 
on  our  western  frontiers,  and  through  them,  the  control  of  the 
disaffected  Indian  tribes  ;  nor  did  she  seem  unwilling,  amidst  our 
domestic  distractions,  to  provoke  a  new  trial  of  our  ability  to  main- 
tain the  independence  she  had  so  reluctantly  confessed.  While 
John  Jay  opened  negotiations  with  Great  Britain,  at  London,  James 
Monroe,  at  Paris,  assured  the  French  Directory  that  Mr.  Jay's 
object  was  to  obtain  compensation  for  spoliations,  with  an  imme- 
diate restitution  of  the  western  posts ;  and  that  he  was  positively 
forbidden  from  weakening  the  engagements  existing  between  the 
United  States  and  France.  These  assurances  were  effectual.  Early 
in  1795  the  French  Directory  decreed  that  the  Treaty  of  Amity 
and  Commerce  should  thenceforth  be  strictly  observed,  and  pro- 
vided for  indemnifying  those  who  had  suffered  by  the  embargo 
at  Bordeaux ;  and  Mr.  Monroe  began  a  dispatch  with  announcing 
that  a  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  claims  for  spoliations  was  at 
hand.  But  he  closed  the  communication  with  a  statement,  that 
the  ground  thus  happily  gained  had  been  suddenly  lost,  by  reason 
of  rumored  stipulations  injurious  to  France  in  the  British  treaty 
just  then  signed  at  London. 

A  cloud  of  political  mystery  gathered  upon  this  compact  from 
the  day  of  its  execution,  the  19th  of  November,  1794,  until  it  was 
finally  promulgated  on  the  9th  of  May,  1796.  France  complained 
of  this  concealment  as  disingenuous;  and  she  ever  afterwards 
maintained  that  the  United  States  had  not  merely  violated  their 
engagements  with  her,  but  had  even  abandoned,  also,  their  pro- 
fessed neutrality,  by  relinquishing  the  principle  that  free  ships  made 
free  goods,  and  by  giving  to  England  a  too  favorable  standard  of 
contraband.  She  therefore  pursued  her  depredations  more  reck- 
lessly than -before,  and  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  compelling  the 
United  States  to  break  their  new  engagements  with  Great  Britain, 
her  ancient  and  most  inveterate  enemy. 

Mr.  Monroe  was  replaced  by  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  but 
France  now  refused  to  receive  or  recognize  a  minister.  A  new 


140  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  august  commission  was  instituted,  consisting  of  Mr.  Pinckney, 
John  Marshall,  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  who,  after  enduring  many 
insults  and  baffling  many  intrigues,  returned  to  the  United  States. 
The  United  States,  apprehending  war  with  not  only  France,  but 
Great  Britain  also,  laid  the  foundations  of  their  present  systems  of 
military  and  naval  defence ;  and  the  controversy  with  the  former 
power  ripened  into  resistance,  reprisal,  and  retaliation.  After  two 
years  had  thus  passed,  and  after  the  French  Directory  had  con- 
sented to  negotiate,  Oliver  Ellsworth,  "William  R.  Davie,  and 
William  Vans  Murray,  proceeded  to  Paris  as  ambassadors.  They 
found  France  just  entering  the  fourth  act  of  the  drama  of  her  Rev- 
olution— the  consulate  of  the  youthful  conqueror  of  Italy.  The 
American  ministers  demanded  indemnities  for  the  spoliations,  as  a 
sine  qua  non.  The  French  ministers,  at  whose  head  was  Joseph 
Bonaparte,  readily  yielded  this  condition,  but  insisted  at  the  same 
time  on  a  recognition  and  renewal  of  the  ancient  treaties,  with 
national  damages  for  the  violation  of  them,  as  a  sine  qua  non  on 
their  part.  The  Americans,  in  vain,  resisted  long  and  strenuously 
the  pretensions  of  the  French  ministers,  viz : 

"That  the  treaties  which  united  France  and  the  United  States  are  not  broken  ;  that 
even  war  could  not  have  broken  them  ;  but  that  the  state  of  misunderstanding  which  has 
existed  for  some  time  between  France  and  the  United  States,  by  the  act  of  some  agents, 
rather  than  by  the  will  of  the  respective  governments,  has  not  been  a  state  of  war,  at 
least  on  the  side  of  France."— .#£/>.  Sec.  State,  1825-'26,  Doc.  108,  page  616,  No.  371. 

But  our  ministers  were  finally  constrained,  by  principles  of  public 
law,  and  the  inflexible  adherence  to  them  by  the  French  ministers, 
to  yield  the  point,  and  admit  that  the  treaties  were  still  in  force — 
and  then  they  proposed  to  purchase  with  large  sums  of  money  a 
release  from  their  most  embarrassing  stipulations. — Rep.  Sec.  State, 
1825-'26,  Doc.  108,  page  631,  No.  380. 

They  offered  ten  millions  of  francs  for  a  release  from  the  article 
of  guaranty,  and  three  millions  of  francs  for  a  reduction  of  the 
privileges  granted  to  France  by  the  17th  article  of  the  Treaty  of 
Commerce,  to  such  as  were  allowed  by  the  United  States  to  the 
most  favored  nation.  France  rejected  all  such  overtures,  and 
the  commissioners,  respectively,  receding  from  their  extreme  de- 
mands, concluded  an  accommodation  by  which  the  United  States 
secured  compensation  for  the  plunder  of  vessels  not  yet  con- 
demned, together  with  payment  of  the  claims  founded  upon  con- 
tracts, and  also  a  satisfactory  designation  of  articles  contraband  of 
war.  The  claims  for  spoliations  in  cases  where  condemnation  had 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  141 

already  passed,  the  original  sine  qua  non  on  our  part,  together 
with  the  reciprocal  claims  of  France  for  national  indemnities,  and 
for  a  recognition  and  renewal  of  the  ancient  treaties,  the  original 
sine  qua  non  on  the  part  of  France,  were  reserved  by  the  following- 
article  : 

"  ART.  2.  The  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  two  parties  not  being  able  to  agree  at 
present  respecting  the  Treaty  of  Alliance  of  the  6th  of  February,  1778,  the  Treaty  of 
Amity  and  Commerce  of  the  same  date,  and  the  Convention  of  the  14th  of  November, 
1788,  nor  upon  the  indemnities  mutually  due  or  claimed,  the  parties  will  negotiate  further 
on  those  subjects  at  a  convenient  time  ;  and  until  they  have  agreed  upon  these  points, 
the  said  Treaties  and  Convention  shall  have  no  operation,  and  the  relations  of  the  two 
countries  shall  be  regulated  as  follows." 

The  United  States  amended  the  new  compact  by  striking  out 
this  second  article  altogether,  and  by  adding  a  new  one  which 
limited  its  duration  to  eight  years. 

Bonaparte,  First  Consul,  accepted  the  amendments,  with  an  ex- 
planation, in  these  words : 

"  Provided,  That  by  this  retrenchment  the  two  states  renounce  their  respective  pre- 
tensions which  are  the  objects  of  the  said  (second)  article." 

The  United  States  assented,  and  the  compact  was  ratified  as 
thus  mutually  amended. 

This  is  the  convention  of  1800.  "The  pretensions"  which 
France  thus  relinquished,  were  claims  for  indemnities  for  viola- 
tions of  the  ancient  treaties  by  the  United  States,  together  with  a 
continuance  and  a  renewal  of  those  treaties ;  and  the  "  preten- 
sions "  which  the  United  States  thus  renounced,  were  the  claims 
for  indemnities  for  spoliations  upon  the  property  of  American 
merchants,  which  are  the  subjects  of  the  bill  now  before  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  President,  this  review  discloses — 

First.  That  on  the  6th  day  of  February,  1778,  and  on  the  14th 
day  of  November,  1788,  the  United  States  and  France  entered 
into  reciprocal,  political,  and  commercial  engagements,  mutually 
beneficial. 

Secondly.  That,  previously ;  to  the  30th  of  September,  1800, 
France  violated  her  engagements  by  committing  depredations,  in 
which  merchants,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  sustained  damages 
to  the  amount  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars,  of  which,  after  allow- 
ing all  claims  adjusted,  there  still  remains  the  sum  of  ten  millions 
of  dollars,  exclusive  of  interest. 

Thirdly.  That  the  United  States  negotiated  with  France  for  pay- 
VOL.  1—10. 


142  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ment  of  those  damages,  and  also  for  a  release  from  their  ancient 
obligations ;  and  that  France  conceded  the  claims  for  damages, 
but  demanded  national  indemnities  for  a  violation  of  the  treaties 
by  the  United  States,  and  also  a  continuance  and  renewal  of 

them. 

Fourthly.  That  the  United  States  renounced  their  claims  for 
damages  due  to  their  citizens,  in  consideration  of  a  release  by 
France  of  the  treaties,  and  of  her  national  claims  for  damages. 

Fifthly.  That  thus  the  United  States  confiscated  ten  millions  of 
private  property  of  their  citizens,  and  applied  it  to  the  purchase 
of  national  benefits,  under  a  constitution  which  declares  that  pri- 
vate property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  uses  without  just  com- 
pensation to  its  owners. 

It  seems  to  result  from  these  facts,  that  the  United  States  be- 
came immediately  liable  to  pay  to  the  American  merchants  the 
sums  before  due  to  them  by  France ;  and  as  this  obligation  was 
assumed  by  the  United  States  in  lieu  of  their  ancient  engagements 
with  France,  undertaken  to  secure  the  establishment  of  the  na- 
tional liberty  and  independence,  it  becomes  in  equity  invested  with 
their  sacredness  and  sanctions,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  regarded 
as  a  debt  incurred  for  the  attainment  of  the  sovereignty,  liberty, 
and  independence  of  the  United  States. 

Why,  then,  Mr.  President,  shall  not  this  debt,  so  ancient,  and 
apparently  so  sacred  and  so  just,  be  discharged  ? 

I  proceed  to  review  the  reasons  which  have  been  at  various 
times  assigned. 

First.  The  intrinsic  justice  of  the  claims  has  ~been  questioned.' 

The  very  learned  and  justly  distinguished  Senator  from  Mis- 
souri, [Mr.  BENTON]  in  a  former  debate,  stated  that  France  had 
justified  these  spoliations,  on  the  ground  that  the  ships  seized 
were  in  part  laden  with  goods  belonging  to  Englishmen,  who  had 
borrowed  the  names  of  Americans.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find 
evidence  to  support  such  a  pretension.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
diplomatic  language  of  the  United  States  constantly  claimed  that 
the  sufferers  were  American  citizens.  Sir,  if  these  claims  are 
spurious,  then  it  must  be  true  that  either  Ellsworth,  Marshall, 
Pinckney,  Monroe,  Morris,  Jefferson,  Adams  the  elder,  and  Wash- 
ington, were  ignorant  of  the  fact,  or  that  they  colluded  to  defraud 
France.  Neither  position  can  be  true.  The  claims  are  therefore 
just. 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  143 

An  objection  raised  by  the  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  HUNTER] 
falls  under  the  same  head.  It  is  that  the  French  government 
have  a  list  or  table  of  the  claims  submitted  in  1803,  which  was 
presented  by  the  American  commissioners,  and  which  shows  that 
the  French,  as  the  Senator  says,  suppose  that  they  paid,  under  the 
convention  of  1803,  all  the  claims  of  American  citizens.  I  have 
this  table  before  me.  If  the  honorable  Senator  will  refer  to  the 
treaty  of  1800,  he  will  find  that  it  stipulated  for  the  payment  of 
the  class  specified  in  that  table  only — to  wit :  debts  owing  on  con- 
tracts— 'and  that  the  claims  for  the  spoliations  now  in  question 
were  omitted  expressly  on  the  ground  that  they  were  excluded  by 
the  treaty  of  1800.  Here  is  the  article  of  that  treaty : 

"  The  debts  contracted  by  one  of  the  two  nations  -with  individuals  of  the  other,  or  by 
the  individuals  of  one  with  the  individuals  of  the  other,  shall  be  paid,  or  the  payment 
may  be  prosecuted  in  the  same  manner  as  if  there  had  been  no  misunderstanding  between 
the  two  states.  But  this  clause  shall  not  extend  to  indemnities  claimed  on  account  of 
captures  or  confiscations" — Vol.  VIII of  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  180. 

Then,  what  is  left  out  of  this  table  ?  Exactly  that  portion  of 
the  claims  left  out  of  the  treaty,  and  which  is  the  subject  of  the 
present  bill. 

Secondly.  It  has  been  objected  in  late  years  that  the  claims  be- 
longed to  speculators.  Certainly  few  of  the  sufferers  survive,  and 
soon  all  will  have  departed.  But  the  claims  are  property ;  they 
were  the  property  of  those  sufferers.  As  property  they  could  be 
transferred  and  transmitted  by  assignment,  will,  and  administra- 
tion. These  are  only  modes  in  which  property  is  perpetuated ; 
and  this  capability  of  being  perpetuated  is  inherent  in  it,  and  is 
always  rightfully  and  necessarily  recognized  and  protected  by  all 
governments,  with  proper  limitations.  Individual  property  is  the 
ballast  of  the  state.  Wo  to  the  state  that  casts  it  overboard.  That 
state  is  sure  to  drift  away,  and  to  break  upon  the  rocks.  But 
the  allegation  that  speculators  have  purchased  these  claims  is 
denied,  while  the  bill  protects  the  public  even  if  it  be  true.  None 
but  a  lawful  assignee  can  take  any  benefit  from  the  bill,  nor  can 
such  an  one  receive  in  any  case  more  than  he  actually  paid  for  the 
claim. 

Thirdly.  It  is  said  that  the  evidences  of  the  claims  and  of  titles 
must  necessarily  he  loose  and  inconclusive. 

However  this  may  be,  the  fault  does  not  rest  with  the  claimants, 
while  the  losses  resulting  from  deficiency  of  proof  will  fall  upon 


144  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

them.  Moreover,  they  must  produce  legal  evidence.  The  United 
States  can  justly  ask  no  more. 

Fourthly.  It  is  denied  that  the  United  States  exchanged  a  release 
of  the  claims  for  a  release  of  the  ancient  treaties. 

We  have  seen  that  in  form  at  least  the  treaty  of  1800  was  such 
an  exchange  of  those  equivalents.  It  was  understood  to  be  such 
an  exchange,  in  effect,  when  made. 

Eobert  II.  Livingston  said : 

"It  will  be  well  recollected  by  the  distinguished  characters  who  had  the  management 
of  the  negotiation,  that  the  payment  for  illegal  captures,  with  damages  and  indemnities, 
was  demanded  on  the  one  side,  and  the  renewal  of  the  treaties  of  1*778  on  the  other; 
that  they  are  considered  as  of  equivalent  value,  and  that  they  only  formed  the  subject  of 
the  second  article." — Letter  to  Talleyrand,  April  17,  1802. 

Napoleon,  at  St.  Helena,  declared — 

"  That  the  suppression  of  the  second  article  at  once  put  an  end  to  the  privileges  which 
France  had  possessed  by  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  annulled  the  just  claims  which  America 
might  have  had  for  injuries  done  in  time  of  peace." — Conversation  with  Gourgaud. 

Notwithstanding  these  and  similar  cotemporaneous  expositions, 
it  has  been  insisted  here  by  two  of  my  very  eminent  predecessors, 
[Mr.  WEIGHT  and  Mr.  Dix,]  as  well  as  by  others,  that  this  con- 
fessed form  of  the  treaty  was  a  mere  diplomatic  artifice ;  that  the 
treaty  was  not  an  exchange  of  equivalents ;  and  that  the  claims 
for  spoliations  were  renounced  because  they  could  not  be  enforced, 
and  not  for  an  adequate  and  admitted  consideration.  Did  Oliver 
Ellsworth  and  his  colleagues  combine  to  practice  a  diplomatic 
fraud  upon  France?  Certainly  not.  Were  they  then  circum- 
vented? If  we  should  grant  that  they  were,  there  would  yet 
remain  John  Adams,  President  in  1800,  and  Thomas  Jefferson, 
President  in  1801,  and  the  Senate  of  those  years,  all  equally  com- 
prornited.  Who  will  impeach  their  intelligence  or  their  directness  ? 
Sir,  upon  whom  shall  we  rely  to  vindicate  our  own  less  deserved 
and  ephemeral  fame,  if  we  strike  so  rudely  the  monuments  where 
tliMe  great  names  lie  sleeping ! 

If  the  United  States  can  plead  fraud  in  this  or  any  other  case, 
how  shall  creditors  or  allies,  individuals  or  states,  learn  to  distin- 
guish between  obligations  which  we  admit  to  be  valid,  and  those 
which  we  claim  a  right  to  repudiate? 

No,  sir  ;  we  cannot  raise  such  a  defence.  Nor  could  it  be  main- 
tained. No  one  questions  the  sincerity  of  the  United  States  in 
prosecuting  these  claims.  France  was  equally  sincere  in  admit- 
ting them,  and  in  preferring  her  own.  Even  in  her  piratical  de- 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  145 

crees,  she  pleaded  an  overpowering  pressure,  and  promised  repa- 
ration : 

"  Being  informed  that  some  French  privateers  have  taken  vessels  belonging  to  the 
United  States  of  America,  I  hasten  to  engage  you  to  take  the  most  speedy  and  efficacious 
means  to  put  a  stop  to  this  robbery." — Monge,  Minister  of  Marine,  to  the  Ordonnateurs 
of  France,  March  30,  1793. 

Thus  France  was  ingenuous  even  in  her  agony  of  social  convul- 
sion. 

"  Although  it  [the  treaty  of  1778]  is  reciprocal  upon  the  whole,  some  provisions  are 
more  specially  applicable  to  the  fixed  position  of  the  United  States,  and  others  have 
allusion  only  to  the  eventual  position  of  France.  The  latter  has  stipulated  few  advan- 
tages— advantages  which  do  not  in  any  respect  injure  the  United  States,  and  the  law- 
fulness of  which  no  foreign  nation  can  contest.  The  French  nation  will  never  renounce 
them'' — M.  Talleyrand  to  Mr.  Gerry,  January  18,  1798. 

The  Convention  of  1800  was  then,  in  fact  as  well  as  in  form,  a 
treaty  of  equivalents.  Can  the  United  States  impeach  it  now,  on 
the  ground  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  equivalent  received.  Cer- 
tainly not,  sir.  It  is  too  late ;  the  parties  are  changed.  The  mer- 
chants' claims  are  j  ust  the  saro.o,  wrhether  you  received  an  adequate 
equivalent,  or  exchanged  their  demands  for  an  insufficient  consid- 
eration. 

Nevertheless,  let  us  pursue  the  objection.  You  say  that  however 
intrinsically  just  the  claims  may  have  been,  they  were  renounced 
because  you  could  not  collect  them  without  resort  to  war.  I  reply, 
a  just  claim  against  a  civilized  state  is  never  valueless.  If  the  state 
is  insolvent  to-day,  it  may  become  able  to  pay  to-morrow ;  if  it 
refuse  to  be  just  to-day,  it  may  become  more  just  to-morrow.  It 
is  true  that  the  United  States  .were  not  bound  to  declare  war  for 
the  claims,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  they  had  no  right  to  confis- 
cate them  without  indemnity.  Thus  we  have  reached  one  of  the 
main  defences  against  these  claims,  viz  : 

Fifthly.  That  the  ancient  treaties  had  become  void  as  against  the 
United  States,  and  therefore  the  release  of  them  ly  France  in  1800 
was  valueless. 

This  argument  involves  two  propositions  : 

1.  That  France  flagrantly  violated  those  compacts. 

2.  That  the  United  States  perfectly  fulfilled  them. 

1.  That  France  flagrantly  violated  those  compacts.  The  chief 
object  of  the  treaties  of  1778  was  the  establishment  of  the  liberty, 
sovereignty,  and  independence  of  the  United  States,  in  the  war 
of  the  Revolution,  and  forever  afterwards.  France  fulfilled  her 
o-uarantee  in  the  Revolution.  But  the  merit  of  that  fulfillment 

C3 


146  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

is  denied.  It  was  said  by  one  of  my  predecessors,  [Mr.  Dix,]  that 
France  was  not  moved  by  generosity  or  sympathy  in  entering  into 
the  treaties,  or  in  fulfilling  them.  Sir,  a  nation  whose  pride  can 
condescend  so  far  as  to  receive  benefits,  vindicates  itself  fully  by 
the  exercise  of  unquestioning  and  enduring  gratitude. 

Interest  and  ambition  do  indeed  too  often  mingle  with  the  purest 
and  highest  of  human  motives,  not  less  of  states  than  of  individuals. 
But  the  character  of  motives  must  be  determined  by  the  character 
of  the  actions  in  which  they  result.  In  the  strait  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, your  agents  applied  for  aid,  not  to  the  King  of  France  only, 
but  also  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  to  the  Kings  of  Spain  and 
Prussia,  and  to  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany.  From  neither  of 
them  could  they  gain  so  much  as  a  protest  to  discountenance  the 
hire  of  mercenaries  by  the  German  princes  to  the  King  of  Great 
Britain,  to  be  employed  with  savage  Indian  tribes  against  us.  But 
France  yielded  money,  volunteers,  recognition,  and  armed  alliance. 
Was  there  no  merit  in  that  ? 

It  is  true,  that  in  our  oppressor  France  found  a  rival  to  humble 
and  overthrow.  But  had  Britain  no  other  rival  or  enemy  than 
France  ?  If  there  were  others,  why  did  we  not  win  them  to  our 
side?  France  did  indeed  exact  a  guarantee  from  the  United 
States  in  exchange  for  her  own.  But  did  we  find  any  other  power 
willing  to  enter  into  such  an  exchange  ?  Moreover,  France  con- 
ceded to  us  all  the  conquests  which  should  be  made  by  the  allied 
armies,  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  except  such  as  would  have 
been  useless  to  us,  and  even  including  the  Canadas,  of  which  we 
had  so  recently  assisted  to  deprive  her ;  and  she  insisted  on  no 
remuneration  after  the  war  should  end.  Was  there  no  magna- 
nimity in  that  ? 

France  was  not  actuated  chiefly  by  ambition  or  revenge  in 
making  the  engagements  of  1778.  The  people,  and  even  the 
court,  were  filled  with  enthusiastic  admiration  of  the  United  States 
and  of  their  cause.  Fenelon  had  already  educated  even  royalty 
in  that  cause,  in  the  palace,  and  under  the  eye  of  the  Grand 
Monarque.  The  court,  the  army,  the  navy,  the  rulers  and  the 
people  of  France,  had  no  standard  of  a  hero  but  Washington,  no 
model  of  a  philosopher  but  Franklin,  nor  of  a  state  but  the  United 
States.  Seventeen  years  ago  I  traversed  the  now  deserted  and 
desolate  chambers  of  the  Bourbons  of  France.  Never  shall  I 
forget  the  grateful  pride  I  felt  when  I  found  among  the  family 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS. 

pictures  of  the  House  of  Orleans  one  which  commemorated  the 
visit  of  Franklin  to  the  Palais  Royale,  and  among  the  illustrations 
of  the  national  glory  at  Versailles,  one  that  celebrated  the  surren- 
der of  Cornwallis.  The  failure  of  Louis  XYI.  as  a  king  resulted 
from  his  attempting,  like  Nerva  in  ancient  Rome,  and  Pio  ISTono 
in  modern  Rome,  to  combine  those  two  incompatible  things, 
the  enlargement  of  popular  freedom  with  the  maintenance  of 
regal  power.  Xor  may  we  undervalue  the  aid  received  from 
France.  It  decided  the  contest.  It  cost  her  more  than  three 
hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  hurried  her  into  a  Revolution 
more  exhausting  than  any  other  state,  in  the  tide  of  time,  has 
endured. 

Thus  it  appears  that  France  fulfilled  faithfully  and  completely 
her  chief  engagements  in  the  treaties  of  1778,  while  it  is  admitted 
that  she  failed  afterwards  in  less  essential  obligations,  but  with  pro- 
testations of  adherence  and  promises  of  reparation. 

2.  Did  the  United  States  completely  and  absolutely  fulfil  their 
reciprocal  obligations  ?  "When  the  war  of  1793  broke  out,  France 
held  all  the  possessions  in  America  which  they  had  guarantied  to 
her  forever,  and  they  were  all  exposed.  Yet  the  United  States 
never  defended,  nor  attempted  to  defend  them ;  never  devoted  a 
life  nor  even  a  dollar  to  that  end.  Thus,  instead  of  standing  on 
fulfilment,  we  are  at  once  brought  to  the  necessity  of  justifying  a 
non-performance  of  the  engagements.  The  justification  has  been 
placed  on  several  grounds,  viz  : 

1.  That  France  did  not  demand  fulfilment. 

Such  an  inference  is  warranted  by  some  of  the  papers  before  us, 
but  there  are  others  which  leave  the  fact  very  doubtful. 

"  I  beg  you  to  lay  before  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  soon  as  possible,  the 
decree  and  the  inclosed  note,  and  to  obtain  from  him  the  Cabinet  decision,  either  as  to 
the  guaranty  that  I  have  claimed  the  fulfilment  of  for  our  colonies,  <tc." — E.  C.  Genet's 
Letter  of  November  14,  1793. 

But  if  France  did  not  demand  the  performance  of  the  guaranty 
in  the  war,  she  insisted  on  its  obligation.  The  United  States  prac- 
tically disavowed  and  renounced  it.  The  proposition  is  self-evi- 
dent. The  treaty  stipulated  alliance,  when  France  should  demand 
it.  The  United  States  assumed  neutrality  in  every  event. 

2.  The  non-performance  by  the  United  States  has  been  justified 
on  the  ground  that  the  casus  fcederis  of  the  stipulated  guaranty 
was  a  defensive  war,  and  that  the  war  of  1793  was  not  of  that 
character. 


148  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  I  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Alliance  stipulated  for  the  execution  of  the 
guaranty  in  the  case  of  "  war  to  break  out ;"  Any  war,  offensive 
or  defensive.  But  the  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  HUNTER]  over- 
powers us  with  an  argument  which  to  me  is  irresistible.  He  says 
that  only  a  defensive  war  must  have  been  contemplated,  because 
a  stipulation  for  aid  and  alliance  in  an  aggressive  war  would  be 
immoral,  unjust,  and  therefore  void.  Sir,  I  acknowledge  that 
higher  law  of  universal  and  eternal  justice,  to  which  the  honorable 
senator  refers.  And  I  admit  that  all  laws  of  states,  and  all  trea- 
ties and  compacts  between  states,  which  contravene  its  sacred 
provisions,  are  utterly  void  and  of  no  effect.  I  accept  therefore 
the  senator's  definition  of  the  casus  fwderis ;  that  it  was  a  defen- 
sive war.  I  controvert,  and  I  rest  my  cause  upon  controverting, 
his  assumption,  that  the  war  of  1793,  between  the  allied  powers 
and  France,  was  on  her  part  an  aggressive,  and  not  a  defensive 
war. 

The  very  proclamation  of  neutrality  implied  a  denial  of  that 
assumption.  The  war  therein  described  was  a  war  "  between  Aus- 
tria, Prussia,  Sardinia,  Great  Britain,  and  the  United  Netherlands, 
of  the  one  part,  and  France,  on  the  other."  Why  was  the  aggres- 
sor the  last  party  to  be  named  ?  But  history  has  determined  the 
character  of  the  parties  in  that  momentous  contest. 

"  The  first  war  of  the  French  Revolution,"  says  Wheaton,  in  his 
History  of  the  Law  of  Nations,  "  originated  in  the  application  by 
the  allied  powers  of  the  principle  of  armed  intervention  to  the 
internal  affairs  of  France,  for  the  purpose  of  checking  the  progress 
of  her  revolutionary  principles  and  the  extension  of  her  military 
power."  War  was  declared,  indeed,  by  France,  but  only  as  a 
reply  to  the  ultimatum  of  a  restoration  of  despotism  tendered  by 
the  armed  league  of  enemies. 

Thus,  sir,  we  have  arrived  at  the  true  ground  of  defence  of  the 
neutrality  of  1793,  to  wit :  that  performance  of  the  treaty  was 
impossible. 

Sir,  in  a,  practical  sense,  performance  was  impossible.  First,  on 
account  of  the  condition  of  France.  The  parties  in  1778  of  course 
expected  that  France  would  remain  an  organized  state,  capable  of 
conducting  combined  operations  under  the  treaty,  upon  a  method 
and  toward  an  end,  without  danger  from  herself  to  her  ally.  But 
it  was  not  so  with  France.  She  became  not  merely  revolutionary, 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  149 

but  disorganized,  having  no  certain  and  permanent  head,  no  stable 
and  effective  legislature.  All  the  organs  of  the  state  were  shat- 
tered, broken,  and  scattered.  "  Neo  color  imperii,  nee  frons  erat 
ulla  Senatus" 

The  king,  after  unavailing  changes  of  ministry,  convened  the 
assembly  of  the  notables.  After  holding  the  bed  of  justice,  and 
after  attempting  to  establish  the  new  plenary  courts,  he  called  the 
states  general,  which  soon  became  a  constituent  assembly,  absorb- 
ing all  the  functions  of  government.  Suddenly  the  people  of 
Paris  rose,  and  brought  the  king,  queen,  and  assembly  into  cap- 
tivity. A  constitutional  monarchy  rose  under  the  dictation  of  the 
people ;  but  the  king  was  degraded,  condemned,  and  executed, 
and  a  republic  appeared.  The  republic  went  down  before  the 
power  of  cabals,  which  rapidly  succeeded  each  other,  all  sustaining 
their  administrations,  throughout  a  reign  of  terror,  by  the  tribunal 
of  blood.  These  unnatural  convulsions  could  have  but  one  end — 
the  restoration  of  the  state  by  a  dictator.  That  magistrate,  in 
1800,  appeared  in  the  person  of  Napoleon.  When  and  where, 
before  that  event,  could  the  United  States  have  been  required  to  go 
to  the  aid  of  France  ?  It  was  well  that  France  had  regained  her 
liberty ;  but  her  ally  had  a  right,  before  going  into  a  war  with  her 
against  Europe,  to  see  that  liberty  combined  with  government  and 
with  public  force — with  national  morality,  with  social  order,  and 
with  civil  manners.  All  this  was  wisely  deemed  by  Washington 
necessary  to  secure  the  United  States  against  absolute  danger,  and 
to  render  their  alliance  at  all  useful  to  France.  For,  on  what  side 
were  the  United  States  to  array  themselves  ?  "With  the  king  while 
he  yet  held  the  reins  of  state,  or  with  the  National  Assembly 
while  abolishing  the  monarchy  ?  With  the  ephemeral  directories, 
which  governed  France  through  the  guillotine,  or  with  the  coun- 
ter-revolutionists, struggling  to  restore  internal  peace  and  repose  ? 
Well  did  Mr.  Jeiferson  say,  that  if  the  United  States  had  panted 
for  war  as  much  as  ancient  Rome — if  their  armies  had  been  as 
effective  as  those  of  Prussia — if  their  coffers  had  been  full  and 
their  debts  annihilated — even  then,  peace  would  have  been  too 
precious  to  be  put  at  hazard,  in  an  enterprise  with  an  ally  thus 
deranged  and  disorganized. 

And  what  was  the  condition  of  the  United  States,  that  they 
should  have  periled  all  in  the  domestic  rage  of  France  and  her  for- 
eign strife  ?  Mr.  Jefferson  was  no  false  interpreter,  and  he  thus  de- 


150  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

scribed  it.  "  An  infant  conntrj  deep  in  debt,  necessitated  to  bor- 
row in  Europe — without  a  land  or  naval  force — without  a  compe- 
tency of  arras  and  ammunition — with  a  commerce  connected  be- 
yond the  Atlantic — with  the  certainty  of  enhancing  the  price  of 
foreign  productions,  and  of  diminishing  that  of  our  own — with  a 
constitution  little  more  than  four  years  old,  in  a  state  of  probation, 
and  not  exempt  from  foes."  No  greater  calamity  than  war  could 
then  have  fallen  upon  the  United  States,  nor  could  war,  in  any 
other  case,  ever  have  come  in  a  form  so  fearful.  It  was  not  a 
fault  of  Washington,  as  it  was  of  Cato,  not  to  see  that  public 
affairs  were  incapable  of  perfection,  and  that  states  could  not  be 
governed  without  submitting  lesser  interests  to  greater.  On  the 
contrary,  the  measure  of  his  duty  was  that  of  Cicero  in  the  con- 
sulship— to  take  care  that  the  republic  should  suffer  no  detriment. 
"Well  and  wisely  did  he  perform  that  duty.  He  could  not  aid 
France,  but  he  saved  his  own  country.  Forever,  then,  let  the  jus- 
tice and  the  wisdom  of  "Washington,  in  that  memorable  crisis, 
stand  vindicated  and  established. 

But  what  does  all  this  prove  ?  Just  this,  and  no  more :  That 
circumstances,  affecting  France  and  the  United  States  equally, 
unforeseen  and  imperious,  prevented  the  United  States  from  even 
undertaking  to  perform  their  compact  with  France,  in  the  way 
stipulated  in  a  particular  emergency.  But  the  circumstances 
creating  this  impossibility  were  not  alone  the  fault  nor  the  mis- 
fortune of  France,  but  arose  in  part  out  of  their  own  condition : 
and  the  omission  to  perform  their  agreement  assured  the  safety 
and  promoted  the  welfare  of  the  United  States.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, the  United  States  owed  to  France,  if  not  indemnities 
for  past  non-performance,  at  least  recognition  and  renewal  of  the 
ancient  treaties.  If,  then,  France  was  held  by  the  treaties,  be- 
cause the  United  States  excused  their  non-performance,  they  were 
equally  bound  to  extenuate  her  deviations,  under  such  a  pressure, 
from  prudence,  order,  and  even  from  justice,  if  she  were  willing 
to  make  reparation.  None  knew  so  well  as  they,  that  France 
broke  the  treaties  in  less  essential  obligations,  not  from  want  of 
virtue  to  be  faithful,  but  from  want  of  magistracy  to  enforce 
fidelity.  But  while  France  was  always  willing  to  make  reparation, 
the  United  States  insisted  on  being  absolutely  free  from  obliga- 
tions. Jay's  treaty  was  confessedly  injurious  to  France.  Either 
that  treaty  was  necessary  to  the  United  States,  or  it  was  unneces- 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  151 

sary.  If  it  was  unnecessary,  the  complaints  of  France  were  just. 
If  necessary,  then  she  was  entitled  to  equivalents.  A  release  from 
the  engagements  in  the  ancient  treaties  was  necessary  to  the  United 
States,  or  it  was  not.  If  it  was  not  necessary,  then  the  United 
States  ought  not  to  have  bartered  the  merchants'  claims  away  for 
it.  If  it  was  necessary,  then  the  United  States  received  an  ade- 
quate equivalent. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  ancient  treaties  had  not  lost  their  ob- 
ligation against  the  United  States  by  reason  of  any  flagrant  viola- 
tion of  them  by  France. 

Sixthly.  The  opponents  of  this  'bill  next  insist  that  the  treaties 
had  been  abrogated  by  an  act  of  Congress  which  was  passed  on  the 
^th  day  of  July,  1T98,  viz.  : 

"  Whereas,  the  treaties  concluded  between  the  United  States  and  France  have  been 
repeatedly  violated  on  the  part  of  the  French  government,  and  the  just  claims  of  the 
United  States  for  reparation  of  the  injuries  so  committed  have  been  refused,  and  their 
attempts  to  negotiate  an  amicable  adjustment  of  all  complaints  between  the  two  nations 
have  been  repelled  with  indignity ;  and  whereas,  under  the  authority  of  the  French 
government,  there  is  yet  pursued  against  the  United  States  a  system  of  predatory  vio- 
lence, infracting  the  said  treaties,  and  hostile  to  the  rights  of  a  free  and  independent 
nation — 

"  Be  it  enacted'  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  United  States  are  of  right  freed  and  exonerated 
from  the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  and  of  the  consular  convention  heretofore  concluded 
between  the  United  States  and  France,  and  that  the  same  shall  not  henceforth  be 
regarded  as  legally  obligatory  on  the  government  or  citizens  of  the  United  States." — 
Statutes  at  Large,  I,  p.  578. 

The  treaty-making  power  is  vested,  not  in  Congress,  but  in  the 
President,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  A 
valid  treaty  can  be  abrogated  only  by  the  power  which  is  com- 
petent to  make  one.  A  treaty  already  void  needs  no  act  of  Con- 
gress or  of  the  President  or  of  the  Senate  to  abrogate  it,  while 
one  not  void  cannot  be  abrogated  except  in  the  constitutional 
way. 

A  treaty,  moreover,  is  the  act  of  two  parties.  Neither  can  dis- 
solve it  without  the  concurrence  of  the  other.  The  act  of  Con- 
gress, then,  left  the  obligations  of  the  ancient  treaties,  so  far  as 
France  was  concerned,  and  so  far  as  the  United  States  politically 
were  concerned,  just  as  it  found  them. 

Seventhly.  As  a  last  resort,  the  opponents  of  these  claims  assert 
that  the  release  of  the  ancient  treaties  was  valueless,  because  they 
had  been  abrogated  by  war  between  the  two  nations. 

I  waive  the  objection  that  these  treaties  were  of  such  a  nature 


152  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

that  they  could  not  be  abrogated  by  war,  and  I  simply  deny  that 
any  such  war  occurred. 

If  war  did  take  place,  it  must  have  begun  in  some  way  and  at 
some  time,  and  have  ended  in  some  other  way  and  at  some  other 
time. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  France  never  declared  war  against  the 
United  States,  and  equally  so  that  the  United  States  never  de- 
clared war  against  France.  There  were  hostilities  between  them, 
but  hostilities  are  not  always  war.  The  statute  book  of  the  United 
States  shows  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  hostilities. 

We  were  not  at  war  with  France  on  the  14th  of  January,  1797 ; 
for  on  that  day  Congress  declared  it  a  misdemeanor  for  an  Ame- 
rican to  engage  in  privateering  against  nations  with  whom  the 
United  States  were  at  peace,  and  we  know  that  France  was  then 
regarded  as  standing  in  that  relation  because  the  United  States 
afterward  authorized  privateering  against  her  in  certain  cases. 

We  were  not  at  war  with  France  on  the  28th  of  May,  1798 ; 
for  on  that  clay  Congress  directed  that  a  provisional  army  should 
be  raised  in  the  event  of  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  United 
States,  or  of  actual  invasion  of  their  territory  by  a  foreign  power, 
or  of  imminent  danger  of  such  invasion. 

Nor  were  we  at  war  with  France  on  the  13th  of  June,  1798  ; 
for  on  that  day  Congress  suspended  commercial  relations  with 
France — a  measure  quite  unnecessary,  if  war  had  already  broken 
up  that  intercourse. 

Xor  were  we  at  war  on  the  25th  of  June,  1798 ;  for  on  that  day 
Congress  authorized  American  vessels  to  oppose  and  resist  searches, 
restraints,  and  seizures,  by  armed  vessels  of  France.  Such  oppo- 
sition and  resistance  would  have  needed  no  sanction  if  committed 
in  open  war. 

We  were  not  at  war  with  France  on  the  2d  day  of  March,  1799 ; 
for  on  that  day  Congress  authorized  the  President  to  levy  and 
organize  additional  regiments,  in  case  war  should  break  out  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  a  foreign  European  power. 

We  were  not  yet  at  war  on  the  20th  of  February,  1800  ;  for  on 
that  day  Congress  directed  that  all  further  enlistments  should  be 
suspended,  unless  during  the  recess  of  Congress  and  during  the 
existing  differences  (which  existing  differences  the  sequel  will  show 
were  not  war)  between  the  United  States  and  France,  imminent 
danger  of  invasion  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  by  that 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  153 

republic,  should,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  be  deemed  to 
have  arisen. 

Finally,  we  were  not  at  war  on  the  30th  of  September,  1800 ; 
for  on  that  day  the  then  "  existing  differences  "  between  France 
and  the  United  States  were  adjusted  by  a  convention,  concluded 
on  the  basis  that  although,  in  the  opinion  of  the  United  States,  the 
aggressions  of  France  would  "well  have  justified  an  immediate 
declaration  of  war,  yet  that  they  had  nevertheless  been  desirous  of 
maintaining  peace,  and  of  leaving  open  the  door  of  reconciliation 
with  France,  and  had  therefore  contented  themselves  with  prepa- 
rations for  defence,  and  measures  calculated  to  protect  their  com- 
merce."— Instructions  to  American  Ministers  at  Paris,  October 
22,  1799. 

Thus,  sir,  it  is  shown,  that  if  a  war  existed,  neither  its  beginning, 
nor  its  end,  nor  the  way  of  either,  can  ever  be  ascertained,  and  that 
the  United  States  were  then  profoundly  ignorant  of  its  existence. 
If  any  man  in  France,  more  than  another,  would  have  known  the 
existence  of  such  a  war,  that  man  was  Napoleon  Bonaparte.  Yet 
we  have  seen  that  the  music  of  this  "  soft  and  silken  war  "  never 
reached  the  ear  of  the  great  Captain  of  France.  For,  in  speaking 
of  the  spoliations,  he  described  them  as  having  been  committed  "  in 
time  of  peace."  It  was  not  thus  with  the  other  enemies  of  France, 
while  he  was  at  liberty  within  her  borders,  nor  has  it  been  so  that 
the  countrymen  of  Washington,  of  Taylor,  and  of  Scott,  have  con- 
ducted their  campaigns  in  other  conflicts. 

It  appears  from  this  review  that  the  treaties  in  question  had  been 
recognized  always  by  both  parties,  and  broken  in  parts  by  both, 
but  under  circumstances  of  excuse  and  palliation  ;  and  that  they 
were  therefore  in  force  when  the  United  States  and  France  mutu- 
ally agreed  to  extinguish  them,  on  the  condition  of  a  release  of 
the  claims  for  indemnities.  Of  the  value  of  that  agreement,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  say  more,  than  that  without  it  the  United  States 
might  have  been  held  by  the  ancient  treaty  of  alliance  to  have 
followed  to  some  extent  the  varying  fortunes  of  France  through 
her  wars  during  the  consulate  and  the  empire,  until  she  found  re- 
pose, from  complete  exhaustion,  on  the  field  of  Waterloo. 

No  reason  for  rejecting  these  claims  remains,  except  that  they 
have  not  been  paid  heretofore.  But  mere  lapse  of  time  pays  no 
debts,  and  discharges  no  obligations.  There  has  been  no  release, 
no  waiver,  no  neglect,  no  delay,  by  the  creditors.  They  have  been 


154  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

here  twenty-five  times  in  fifty  years ;  that  is  to  say,  they  have 
appeared  in  their  successive  generations,  before  every  Congress 
since  their  claims  against  the  United  States  accrued.  Against  such 
claims  and  such  creditors  there  is  no  prescription. 

It  is  said,  indeed,  that  the  nation  is  unable  to  pay  these  claims 
now.  I  put  a  single  question  in  reply :  When  will  the  nation  be 
more  affluent  than  now  ? 

The  Senator  [Mr.  HUNTEK]  says,  again,  that,  if  the  debts  are 
just,  we  should  pay  the  whole,  and  not  a  moiety ;  and  that  if  the 
claims  are  unjust,  then  the  bill  proposes  a  gratuity — that  in  the  one 
case  the  appropriation  is  too  small,  and  in  the  other  too  great. 
This  is  the  plea  of  him  who,  I  think  it  was  in  Ephesus,  despoiled 
the  statue  of  Jupiter  of  its  golden  robe,  saying,  Gold  was  too  warm 
in  summer,  and  too  cold  in  winter,  for  the  shoulders  of  the  god. 

Sir,  commerce  is  one  of  the  great  occupations  of  this  nation. 
It  is  the  fountain  of  its  revenues,  as  it  is  the  chief  agent  of  its  ad- 
vancement in  civilization  and  enlargement  of  empire.  It  is  exclu- 
sively the  care  of  the  federal  authorities.  It  is  for  the  protection 
of  commerce  that  they  pass  laws,  make  treaties,  build  fortifica- 
tions, and  maintain  navies  upon  all  the  seas.  But  justice  and  good 
faith  are  surer  defences  than  treaties,  fortifications,  or  naval  arma- 
ments. Justice  and  good  faith  constitute  true  national  honor, 
which  feels  a  stain  more  keenly  than  a  wound.  The  nation  that 
lives  in  wealth  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  power,  and  yet  under  un- 
paid obligations,  dwells  in  dishonor  and  in  danger.  The  nation 
that  would  be  truly  great,  or  even  merely  safe,  must  practice  an 
austere  and  self-denying  morality. 

The  faith  of  canonized  ancestors,  whose  fame  now  belongs  to 
mankind,  is  pledged  to  the  payment  of  these  debts.  "  Let  the 
merchants  send  hither  well-authenticated  evidence  of  their  claims, 
and  proper  measures  shall  be  taken  for  their  relief."  This  was  the 
promise  of  Washington.  The  evidence  is  here.  Let  us  redeem 
the  sacred  and  venerable  engagement.  Through  his  sagacity  and 
virtue,  we  have  inherited  with  it  ample  and  abundant  resources, 
and  to  them  we  ourselves  have  added  the  newly  discovered  wealth 
of  southern  plains,  and  the  hidden  treasures  of  the  western  coasts. 
With  the  opening  of  the  half  century,  we  are  entering  upon  new 
and  profitable  intercourse  with  the  ancient  Oriental  states  and 
races,  while  we  are  grappling  more  closely  to  us  the  new  states  on 
our  own  continent.  Let  us  signalize  an  epoch  so  important  in 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  155 

commerce  and  politics,  by  justly  discharging  ourselves  forever 
from  the  yet  remaining  obligations  of  the  first  and  most  sacred  of 
all  our  national  engagements.  "While  we  are  growing  over  all 
lands,  let  us  be  rigorously  just  to  other  nations,  just  to  the  several 
states,  and  just  to  every  class  and  to  every  citizen  ;  in  short,  just 
in  all  our  administration,  and  just  toward  all  mankind.  So  shall 
prosperity  crown  all  our  enterprises — nor  shall  any  disturbance 
within  nor  danger  from  abroad  come  nigh  unto  us,  nor  alarm  us  for 
the  safety  of  fireside,  or  fane,  or  capitol. 


15(>  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


THE   PUBLIC   DOMAIN. 

FEBRUARY    27,    1851. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  The  organization  of  the  American  Republic  is 
a  political  anomaly.  Ancient  and  modern  states,  rudely  consti- 
tuted within  narrow  limits,  have  aggrandized  themselves  by 
colonies  and  conquests,  while  passing  through  various  revolutions 
of  government.  But  the  world  has  never  before  seen  a  state 
assume  a  perfect  organization  in  its  very  beginning,  and  extend 
itself  over  a  large  portion  of  a  great  continent,  without  conquests, 
without  colonies,  and  without  undergoing  any  change  of  consti- 
tution. 

The  success  of  Portugal  and  of  the  Netherlands  in  planting  pro- 
fitable commercial  colonies  in  the  East  Indies,  in  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries,  stimulated  nearly  all  the  European  states  to 
attempt  to  secure  similar  advantages,  by  exploring  and  appropri- 
ating to  themselves  portions  of  the  New  World,  then  known  as 
the  Western  Indies.  Spain,  Britain,  and  France,  divided  between 
themselves  nearly  all  North  America.  Each  of  these  kingdoms, 
however,  pursued  a  policy  so  rigorous  as  to  hinder  the  growth  of 
the  colonies  it  planted. 

The  United  States,  in  the  Revolution  of  1776,  supplanted  Great 
Britain  in  sovereignty  over  the  region  lying  between  the  St.  Law- 
rence and  Louisiana,  and  stretching  from  the  Atlantic  coast  to  the 
banks  of  the  Mississippi. 

The  conquering  states,  practically  independent  of  each  other, 
were  embarrassed  by  conflicting  boundaries.  The  controversy 
was  magnanimously  ended,  by  an  agreement  that  each  should 
release  its  claim  of  unappropriated  territory  for  the  common  use 
and  benefit. 

New  York  led  the  way,  and  ceded  her  claims  as  well  of  "  polit- 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  157 

ical  jurisdiction  "  as  "  of  the  right  of  soil,"  "  to  be  and  inure  to  the 
use  and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States  as  should  become 
members  of  the  Federal  Alliance  of  the  said  states,  and  for  no 
other  use  or  purpose  whatever." 

Virginia  claimed  the  broad  region  lying  north-west  of  the  Ohio, 
and  relinquished  it  in  1785,  with  a  declaration  that  it  should  "  be 
considered  as  a  common  fund  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  such  of 
the  United  States  as  have  become  or  shall  become  members  of 
the  Confederation  or  Federal  Alliance  of  the  said  states,  (Virginia 
inclusive,)  according  to  their  usual  and  respective  proportions  in 
the  general  charge  and  expenditure,  and  shall  be  faithfully  and 
bonafid-e  disposed  of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no  other  use  or  pur- 
pose whatsoever." 

Massachusetts  soon  afterwards  released  to  the  United  States, 
"  for  their  benefit,  Massachusetts  inclusive." 

Connecticut  conveyed,  in  1786,  in  the  same  form. 

South  Carolina,  in  1787,  ceded,  "  for  the  benefit  of  the  United 
States,  South  Carolina  inclusive." 

North  Carolina,  in  1790,  conveyed  by  a  deed  containing  the 
same  declaration  which  had  been  used  by  Virginia ;  and  Georgia 
completed  the  title  of  the  United  States,  by  a  cession  on  the 
same  terms,  attended  with  other  stipulations,  which  are  not  now 
important. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  adopted  in  the  course  of 
this  great  transaction,  sanctioned  it  as  follows : 

"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regula- 
tions respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States ;  and 
nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  particular  state." — Art.  14,  Sec.  3. 

The  Continental  Congress  had  previously  adopted  the  ordinance 
of  1787,  by  which  they  established  a  government  in  the  North- 
western Territory,  and  provided  for  its  future  subdivision  into 
states.  With  a  view  to  that  great  political  purpose,  the  Constitu- 
tion declared  that  "  New  states  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  this  Union." — Art.  5,  Sec.  3. 

The  purchase  of  Louisiana  from  France  in  1803,  the  acquisition 
of  Florida  by  a  grant  from  Spain  in  1819,  the  discovery  of  Oregon, 
and  the  recent  purchase  of  New  Mexico  and  Upper  California, 
extended  our  domain  along  the  shores  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to 
the  Rio  Grande,  and,  from  its  head  waters,  across  the  Rocky 

VOL.  1—11. 


158  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Mountains  and  the  Snowy  Hills  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  The  aggre- 
gate quantity  of  this  national  estate  is  fifteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
four  millions  of  acres;  of  which,  one  hundred  and  thirty-four 
millions  have  been  definitely  appropriated,  and  there  remain, 
including  appropriations  not  yet  perfected,  fourteen  hundred  and 
fifty  millions  of  acres. 

Using  only  round  numbers,  these  lands  are  distributed  among 
the  states  and  territories  as  follows : 

Acres. 

In  Ohio      -  745,000 

Indiana  2,751,000 

Illinois  14,060,000 

Missouri  29,216,000 

Alabama  17,238,000 

Mississippi     -  14,308,000 

Louisiana       -  22,854,000 

Michigan       -  24,864,000 

Arkansas       -  27,402,000 

Florida  -  31,801,000 

Iowa      -  -  27,153,000 

Wisconsin      -  -  26,321,000 

Minnesota  56,000,000 

Northwest  Territory       -  -       376,000,000 

Oregon  Territory  -  -       218,536,000 

Nebraska  Territory  87,488,000 

Indian  Territory  -      119,789,000 

California  and  Utah  -       287,162,000 

New  Mexico  49,727,000 

The  domain  came  to  the  United  States  encumbered  with  a  right 
of  possession  by  Indian  tribes,  which  we  are  gradually  extinguish- 
ing by  purchase,  as  the  necessities  of  advancing  population  require. 
At  the  establishment  of  the  federal  government,  the  United 
States  suffered  from  exhaustion  by  war,  and  labored  under  the 
pressure  of  a  great  national  debt,  while  they  were  obliged  to 
make  large  expenditures  for  new  institutions,  and  to  prepare  for 
defence  by  land  and  by  sea.  They  therefore  adopted  a  policy 
which  treated  the  domain  merely  as  a  fund  or  source  of  revenue. 
They  divided  it  into  townships,  sections,  and  quarter-sections,  and 
offered  it  at  public  sale,  at  a  minimum  price  of  two  dollars  per 
acre,  on  credit,  and  subsequently  at  private  sale,  on  the  same 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  159 

terms.  In  1820,  they  abolished  the  credit  system,  and  reduced 
the  price  to  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre.  In  1833, 
they  recognized  a  right  of  pre-emption  in  favor  of  actual  occu- 
pants ;  and  the  system,  as  thus  •  modified,  still  remains  in  form 
upon  our  statute  book.  The  United  States,  however,  have,  at 
different  times,  made  very  different  dispositions  of  portions  of  the 
domain.  Thus  there  have  been  appropriated  to  the  new  states 
and  territories,  for  purposes  of  internal  improvement,  for  saline 
reservations,  for  the  establishment  of  seats  of  government  and 
public  buildings,  and  for  institutions  of  education,  as  follows  : 

Acres. 

To  Ohio  1,847,575 

Indiana  -  2,331,690 

Illinois     -  1,649,024 

Missouri  -  1,793,748 

Alabama  1,473,994 

Mississippi       -  1,384,944 

Louisiana  1,332,124 

Michigan  1,674,598 

Arkansas  1,489,220 

Wisconsin  217,920 

Iowa  46,720 

Florida   -  1,553,635 

Besides  these  appropriations,  the  Senate  will  at  once  recall 
several  acts  of  Congress,  which  surrendered,  in  the  whole,  seventy- 
nine  millions  of  acres  for  bounties  in  the  Mexican  war,  bounties 
in  the  war  of  1812,  subsequent  gratuities  to  the  soldiers  in  the 
same  war  and  in  Indian  wars,  cessions  of  swamp  lands  to  new 
states,  and  for  the  construction  of  a  railroad  from  Chicago  to 
Mobile,  and  other  internal  improvements,  none  of  which  last- 
named  cessions  have  yet  been  located. 

The  aggregate  of  revenues  derived  from  the  public  domain  is 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five  millions  three  hundred  and  thirty-nine 
thousand  ninety-three  dollars  and  ninety-three  cents,  showing  an 
annual  average  revenue  of  one  and  a  quarter  million  of  dollars 
since  the  system  of  sales  was  adopted. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  the  time  is  near  at  hand  when  the  United 
States  will  find  it  expedient  to  review  their  policy,  and  to  consider 
the  following  principles : 


160  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

First.  That  lands  shall  be  granted  in  limited  quantities,  gratui- 
tously, to  actual  cultivators  only. 

Second.  That  the  possessions  of  such  grantees  shall  be  secured 
against  involuntary  alienation. 

Third.  That  the  United  States  shall  relinquish  to  the  states  the 
administration  of  the  public  lands  within  their  limits. 

These  principles,  sir,  have  no  necessary  connection.  I  shall 
therefore  discuss  them  separately. 

First.  A  gratuitous  allotment  of  lands,  in  limited  quantities,  to 
actual  settlers  and  cultivators  only.  This  principle  involves  three 
propositions — 

1.  A  limitation  of  the  quantity  which  shall  be  granted  to  any 
one  person ; 

2.  Occupation  and  cultivation  as  conditions  of  the  grant ; 

3.  A  gratuitous  grant. 

First.  A  limitation  of  the  quantity  to  be  allotted  to  any  one 
person. 

If  the  public  lands  were  movable  merchandize,  price  would  be 
the  principal,  if  not  the  only  subject  of  inquiry.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  only  the  money  received  by  the  government  on  sales 
that  perishes  or  passes  away.  The  lands  remain  fixed  just  where 
they  were  before  the  sale,  and  they  constitute  a  part  of  the  terri- 
tory subject  to  municipal  administration  as  much  after  sale  as 
before.  The  possessors  of  the  land  sold  become  soon,  if  not  im- 
mediately, citizens,  and  they  will  ultimately  be  a  majority  of  the 
whole  population  of  the  country,  supporting  the  government  by 
their  contributions,  maintaining  it  by  their  arms,  and  wielding  it 
for  their  own  and  the  general  welfare.  To  look,  then,  at  this 
subject  merely  with  reference  to  the  revenue  that  might  be  de- 
rived from  the  sale  of  the  lands,  would  be  to  commit  the  fault  of 
that  least  erected  spirit  that  fell  from  heaven,  whose 

"  Looks  and  thoughts 

Were  always  downward  bent,  admiring  more 
The  riches  of  Heaven's  pavement,  trodden  gold, 
Than  aught  divine,  or  holy,  else  enjoyed." 

All  will  admit — all  do  admit — that  the  power  over  the  domain 
should  be  so  exercised  as  to  favor  the  increase  of  population,  the 
augmentation  of  wealth,  the  cultivation  of  virtue,  and  the  diffusion 
of  happiness. 

I  do  not  say  that  land  in  this  or  any  other  country  ought  to  be, 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  161 

or  ever  could  be  divided  and  enjoyed  equally.  I  assert  no  such 
absurdity.  But  I  do  say,  with  some  confidence,  that  great  inequal- 
ity of  landed  estates,  here  or  elsewhere,  tends  to  check  population, 
enterprise,  and  wealth,  and  to  hinder  and  defeat  the  highest 
interests  of  society.  Every  state  in  this  Union  recognizes  this 
principle,  and  guards  against  undue  aggregation  of  estates  by 
restraints  upon  accumulation,  by  inhibitions  of  entails,  and  by 
dividing  inheritances.  A  partition  of  this  vast  public  domain  is 
inevitable.  It  has  been  going  on  ever  since  the  lands  were 
acquired.  It  is  going  on  now.  And  it  will  go  on  hereafter  with 
increasing  rapidity.  That  partition  affords  us  an  opportunity  to 
apply  the  same  beneficent  and  invigorating  policy  in  a  new  and 
benign  form,  without  disturbing  any  existing  estates,  or  interfering 
with  any  vested  interests,  and  without  disturbing  any  established 
laws  or  customs. 

There  is  no  arbitrary  measurement  of  the  portion  of  land  which 
one  possessor  can  advantageously  cultivate.  Yet  there  are,  prac- 
tically, dimensions  within  which  lands  are  held  for  that  purpose ; 
and  when  these  are  exceeded,  the  surplus  is  held  for  purposes  of 
commerce  or  speculation.  Commerce  in  the  public  lands,  although 
by  no  means  immoral,  nevertheless  ought  to  be  regarded  with 
jealousy.  It  diverts  capital  from  active  or  productive  industry, 
and  prolongs  the  period  before  the  land  purchased  can  be  made 
fruitful.  Mortgages,  judgments,  and  accidents  of  insolvency  and 
of  death,  render  the  title  uncertain  and  confused,  and  thus  exclude 
the  lands  from  market.  Every  one  has  seen  in  new  countries  ex- 
tensive tracts  of  land  upon  which  the  speculator  had  laid  his  hand, 
and  thus  rendered  them  useless  to  himself,  useless  to  the  commu- 
nity, and  useless  or  nearly  so  to  the  state.  The  want  of  some  secu- 
rity against  inconveniences  so  prejudicial  to  the  states  may  now 
be  supplied  without  producing  any  embarrassment  to  individuals 
or  to  the  government. 

Secondly.  The  same  policy  seems  to  commend  the  principle  of 
insisting  on  permanent  occupation  and  cultivation  as  conditions 
of  a  grant  of  any  portion  of  the  public  domain.  It  ought  to  be 
kept  open  and  available  to  those  who  seek  it  for  cultivation. 
It  ought  therefore  to  be  kept  free  from  absent  owners,  who, 
while  they  would  exclude  settlers,  would  leave  it  entirely  unpro- 
ductive, and  who  would  pay  to  the  state  either  nothing,  or  at 


162  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

most  a  tax  that  would  poorly  compensate  for  stamping  sterility 
upon  the  soil. 

The  same  principle  that  dictated  the  abandonment  of  the  credit 
system  in  1820,  seems  to  prescribe  now  a  limitation  of  the  sales  to 
actual  settlers.  Xor  would  the  revenue  derived  from  sales  be 
aifected  by  such  a  measure.  The  price  of  the  land  is  fixed  and 
uniform.  If  more  lands  are  sold  at  one  time  under  the  present 
system  than  would  be  sold  with  such  a  limitation,  a  rest  must  follow, 
until  the  excess  of  land  sold  above  the  actual  supply  of  the  market 
shall  be  taken  off  at  a  profit  or  loss  from  the  hand  of  the  specula- 
tor. The  commercial  revulsion  of  1837,  aggravated  by  wild  and 
reckless  speculations  in  the  domain,  gave  us  instructions  on  this 
subject  which  ought  not  to  be  neglected. 

The  Senator  from  Michigan,  [Mr.  FELCH,]  who  has  discussed 
this  subject  with  very  great  ability,  dwells  upon  the  difficulty  of 
prescribing  the  evidence  of  occupancy  and  cultivation.  But  this 
difficulty  would  soon  be  removed  if  the  system  should  be  changed. 
A  title  might  be  withheld  until  improvements  should  be  made 
sufficient  to  prevent  a  voluntary  forfeiture. 

Thirdly.  The  question  of  making  the  grants  of  public  lands  gra- 
tuitously is  one  of  more  difficulty.  By  gratuitous  grants,  I  mean 
those  which  would  be  practically  so,  and  that  the  lands  thus  dis- 
posed of  should  be  charged  with  the  costs  of  the  grant. 

The  demand  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre,  or 
of  two  hundred  dollars  on  a  farm  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres, 
although  it  is  not  unjust,  and  although  it  may  be  necessary,  is 
nevertheless,  in  its  practical  operation,  a  tax  upon  the  privilege 
of  cultivating  the  domain.  But  the  first  and  fundamental  interest 
of  the  republic  is  the  cultivation  of  its  soil.  That  cultivation  is 
the  sole  fountain  of  the  capital  or  wealth  which  supplies  every 
channel  of  industry.  The  more  it  is  taxed,  the  less  freely  it  will 
flow.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that,  notwithstanding  this  tax,  labor  seeks 
the  soil  within  the  new  states  and  territories,  and  that  society  ad- 
vances there  with  a  rapidity  unparalleled.  But  it  is  equally  true 
that  the  tax  prevents  the  immigration  of  a  very  large  mass  of  per- 
sons who  are  destitute  of  employment  in  the  eastern  states,  while 
it  rejects  even  a  greater  mass  of  cultivators  in  Europe.  We  are 
competitors  with  the  European  states  in  agriculture  and  in  manu- 
factures. They  have  the  advantages  of  cheaper  labor  and  greater 
capital.  "We  ought  therefore  to  invite  here  the  labor  necessary  to 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  163 

augment  our  productions,  and  the  industry  and  skill  required  to 
prepare  them  for  internal  and  foreign  commerce.  Can  it  be  doubt- 
ful for  a  moment  that  it  is  our  policy  to  bring  the  manufacturer  to 
our  own  shores,  and  to  invite  the  farmer  to  supply  the  wants  of  the 
artisan  from  our  own  unproductive  lands  ? 

Commercial  supremacy  demands  just  such  an  agricultural  basis 
as  the  fertile  and  extensive  regions  of  the  United  States,  when 
inhabited,  will  supply.  Political  supremacy  follows  commercial 
ascendency.  It  was  by  reason  of  the  want  of  just  such  an  agri- 
cultural basis,  that  Yenice,  Portugal,  and  Holland,  successively 
lost  commerce  and  empire.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
just  such  a  basis,  that  France,  England,  and  Spain,  seized  so 
eagerly  and  held  so  tenaciously  the  large  portions  of  this  con- 
tinent which  they  respectively  occupied.  It  wras  for  the  purpose 
of  supplying  the  loss  of  this  basis,  that  England  has,  within  the 
last  seventy  years,  extended  her  conquests  over  a  large  portion  of 
India. 

We  now  possess  this  basis,  and  all  that  we  need  is  to  develop 
its  capabilities  as  fully  and  as  rapidly  as  possible.  Nor  ought 
we  to  overlook  another  great  political  interest.  Mutual  jeal- 
ousies delayed  a  long  time  the  establishment  of  the  Union  of 
these  states,  and  have  ever  since  threatened  its  dissolution.  It 
is  apparent  that  the  ultimate  security  for  its  continuance  is  found 
in  the  power  of  the  states  established,  and  hereafter  to  be  estab- 
lished, on  the  public  domain.  Those  new  and  vigorous  communi- 
ties continually  impart  new  life  to  the  entire  commonwealth,  while 
the  absolute  importance  of  free  access  to  the  ocean  will  secure 
their  loyalty,  even  if  the  fidelity  of  the  Atlantic  states  shall  fail. 
Such  as  these,  sir,  may  have  been  some  of  the  considerations  that 
induced  Andrew  Jackson  so  long  ago  to  declare  his  opinion,  that 
the  time  was  not  distant  when  the  public  domain  ought  to  cease 
to  be  regarded  as  a  source  of  revenue.  Such  considerations  may 
have  had  some  influence  with  the  late  distinguished  Senator  from 
South  Carolina,  [J.  C.  CALHOUN,]  to  propose  a  release  of  the  pub- 
lic domain  to  the  states,  on  their  paying  a  small  per  centum  of 
revenue  to  the  United  States ;  and  we  are  at  liberty  to  suppose 
that  a  course  of  reasoning  not  entirely  unlike  this,  brought  that 
eminent  statesman,  who  is  now  Secretary  of  State,  [DANIEL 
WEBSTER]  to  propose  here,  a  year  ago,  a  gratuitous  appropriation 
of  the  public  domain  to  actual  settlers. 


ItU  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Nevertheless,  the  practicability  of  such  a  policy,  and  its  har- 
mony with  other  national  interests,  are  as  yet  by  no  means  gene- 
rally admitted.  The  first  objection  which  it  encounters  is  the 
economical  one,  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  GIVE  AWAY  the  public 
lands.  But  the  property  given  would  remain  with  the  giver  after 
the  gift,  and  would  be  enhanced  in  usefulness  by  the  gift.  All 
that  we  should  give  away  by  surrendering  the  public  domain 
would  be  the  revenue  that  might  be  derived  from  sales.  The  hon- 
orable Senator  from  Michigan  pathetically  asks,  what  new  fountain 
shall  be  opened  to  supply  the  deficiency,  if  this  one  be  closed  \ 
And  has  it  come  to  this,  sir  :  that  the  federal  government,  charged 
with  only  the  burdens  of  national  defence,  of  commerce,  and  of 
arbitrament  between  the  states,  while  absolutely  relieved  from  all 
responsibilities  of  municipal  and  domestic  administration,  yet  en- 
joying unlimited  power  of  indirect  as  well  as  of  even  direct  taxa- 
tion, cannot  sustain  itself  in  a  season  of  profound  peace,  without 
consuming  the  patrimony  of  the  states  ?  Sir,  I  answer  the  Sena- 
tor's inquiry :  The  resource  to  supply  the  deficiency  of  a  million 
and  a  quarter  of  dollars  will  be  found  in  retrenchment  of  the  ex- 
penses of  administration. 

A  SENATOR.  "Will  this  government  ever  retrench  ?  Does  the 
Senator  from  New  York  expect  this  government  to  retrench  ? 

Mr.  SEWAKD.  No,  sir  ;  not  while  the  revenue  remains  full.  Re- 
duce the  revenue  a  million  and  a  quarter,  or  even  five  millions, 
and  you  will  find  the  expenses  of  the  government  accommodate 
themselves  to  the  reduction.  Raise  the  revenue  to  a  hundred 
millions,  and  you  will  find  the  expenses  adjust  themselves  to  that 
standard.  Sir,  if  you  are  ever  to  have  retrenchment,  you  must 
begin  with  reducing  taxation.  And  where  can  you  begin  so  well 
as  with  the  taxation  upon  the  privilege  of  cultivating  the  national 
estate  ?  But,  sir,  we  shall  have  no  such  deficiency  of  revenue  to  sup- 
ply. Alarms  of  an  exhausted  treasury  are  continually  sounded 
here,  while  the  revenues  received  under  a  system  of  imposts,  which 
in  many  respects  is  most  unwise,  annually  exceed  all  estimates  of 
administration.  Last  year,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  pre- 
dicted a  deficiency  of  sixteen  millions  of  dollars,  and  yet  no  de- 
ficiency at  all  occurred.  The  revenues  for  the  present  year  are 
equally  prosperous  ;  and  they  will  never  be  less  prosperous  while 
we  are  at  peace,  as  I  hope  we  shall  always  be,  for  the  wealth  and 
industry  of  the  country  are  constantly  increasing  and  expanding 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  165 

I  know,  indeed,  that  revenue  is  liable  to  be  affected  by  fluctua- 
tions of  trade  ;  but  such  disturbances  are  only  occasional  and 
temporary. 

The  Senator  from  Michigan  exaggerates  the  prodigality  of  what 
he  calls  the  giving  away  of  the  domain,  by  stating  that  it  cost 
seventy-five  millions  of  dollars — equivalent  to  twenty-two  cents 
per  acre,  or  thirty-two  dollars  and  twenty  cents  for  each  farm  of 
one  hundred  and  sixty  acres.  And  from  such  premises  as  these 
he  argues  that  it  would  cost  thirty-five  millions  of  dollars  to  give 
away  the  public  lands  lying  in  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Michigan,  Mis- 
souri, and  Minnesota.  Sir,  I  do  not  understand  exactly  the  basis 
of  the  Senator's  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  domain,  but  I  can  nev- 
ertheless safely  pronounce  his  speculations  entirely  fallacious.  If 
the  cost  of  the  revolutionary  war,  the  cost  of  the  long  controversy 
with  France  which  ended  in  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  the  cost 
of  all  the  Indian  wars,  and  the  cost  of  the  late  war  with  Mexico, 
all  of  which  were  in  some  degree  connected  with  the  acquisition 
of  the  public  domain,  should  be  included  in  the  estimate,  the  en- 
tire cost  of  the  public  lands  would  be  seven  hundred  millions, 
instead  of  seventy-five  millions  of  dollars.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  expense  account  be  credited  with  all  the  national  benefits — • 
financial,  commercial,  and  political — which  have  been  secured, 
the  domain  would  be  discharged  from  all  indebtedness  whatever 
to  the  treasury. 

Sir,  the  acquisition  of  the  domain,  whatever  was  its  cost,  is  a 
transaction  completed,  ended,  past.  Its  value  is  what  it  is  worth 
now,  not  what  it  cost. 

Mr.  President,  the  question  of  such  a  disposition  of  the  public 
lands  as  I  have  suggested  is  entirely  misapprehended.  It  is  not 
whether  we  shall  relinquish  a  revenue  of  a  million  and  a  quarter. 
The  revenue  has  ceased,  and  the  fountain  from  which  it  flowed  is 
dried  up  already. 

We  have  by  various  acts,  passed  within  the  last  ten  years,  given 
up  seventy-eight  millions  nine  hundred  and  thirty-two  thousand 
five  hundred  and  thirteen  acres,  which  are  now  in  market  and 
coming  into  market,  and  which  must  be  taken  off  from  the  hands 
of  states  and  individuals  before  our  own  sales  can  be  renewed. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  assures  us  that  the  revenue  from 
the  public  domain  is  suspended  by  this  legislation  for  a  period  of 
sixteen  years. 


166  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Sir,  a  revenue  that  is  suspended  for  sixteen  years  has  practically 
ceased  forever.  The  Senator  from  Michigan,  perplexed  with  tliis 
argument,  reviews  the  treasury  estimates,  and  reduces  the  period 
of  exhaustion  to  eight  years. 

Sir,  I  say,  then,  to  the  Senator,  that  he  has  not  changed  the  case. 
A  national  revenue  that  is  suspended  for  eight  years  has  practically 
ceased  forever.  But,  sir,  neither  the  Senator  from  Michigan,  nor 
even  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  has  estimated  the  period  of 
exhaustion  at  its  full  length.  Congress  is  annually  making  new 
appropriations.  The  Senate  has  at  this  session  passed  an  act  dis- 
posing of  ten  millions  of  acres.  We  all  hope  that  that  act  will 
become  a  law,  although  its  effect  would  be  to  add  at  least  five 
years  to  the  term  for  which  the  revenue  from  the  domain  is  sus- 
pended. Let  us  then  apprehend  the  emergency  as  it  is,  and  act 
accordingly.  The  domain  no  longer  yields,  nor  will  never  again 
yield,  a  revenue.  Since  its  financial  benefits  have  ceased,  let  us 
no  longer  dispose  of  it  by  impulse  and  caprice,  not  to  say  by  par- 
tiality or  favor,  but  let  us  so  dispose  of  it  as  to  secure  political  and 
social  benefits  to  the  whole  Union. 

It  is  objected  that  the  domain  is  pledged  to  public  creditors.  The 
debt  charged  upon  the  domain  is  $27,935,350 — a  debt  which  is 
rapidly  diminishing,  and,  if  we  practice  economy,  will  have  dis- 
appeared, by  the  appliance  of  revenues  from  customs  alone,  long- 
before  the  public  domain  will  yield  a  dollar,  for  even  the  payment 
of  the  interest  on  it.  But  if  it  be  necessary  to  hold  the  public 
domain  liable  for  the  debt,  we  may  properly  set  apart  sufficient 
lands  for  that  purpose,  and  let  the  residue  be  disposed  of  as  other 
interests  require. 

The  Senator  from  Michigan  resisted  the  policy  proposed,  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  reduce  the  value  of  real  estate  in  the  new 
states.  It  has  been  urged  that  that  inconvenience  would  also 
reach  the  old  states.  The  inconvenience,  Mr.  President,  if  it 
should  occur  at  all,  would  be  merely  temporary.  The  reclaiming 
of  the  domain  would  go  on  more  rapidly ;  and  we  all  know  that 
cultivated  as  well  as  vacant  lands  rise  in  value  just  as  rapidly  as 
new  lands  lying  amongst  or  adjacent  to  them  are  improved.  What 
would  be  lost  in  the  first  instance,  would  be  abundantly  regained 
afterward. 

There  is,  however,  Mr.  President,  one  objection  of  a  more 
serious  nature  than  any  I  have  yet  considered.  I  hear  it  said  on 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  167 

all  sides,  that  .the  domain  ought  to  be  disposed  of  for  great  and 
beneficent  objects — objects  beneficial  to  the  old  as  well  as  to  the 
new  states.  Sir,  I  have  always  favored  such  a  policy ;  and  it  is 
upon  that  ground  that  I  have  cheerfully  voted  hitherto,  as  I  shall 
continue  to  vote  hereafter,  for  appropriations  upon  that  principle, 
so  long  as  Congress  shall  continue  to  adhere  even  in  form  to  the 
ancient  system.  It  is  upon  this  ground  that  I  shall  support  the 
bill  now  under  consideration,  which  proposes  to  bestow  upon  the 
state  of  Louisiana  the  public  lands  within  her  limits,  to  enable  her 
to  improve  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi — a  policy  that  I 
brought  before  the  Senate  at  the  last  session — a  measure  of  great 
urgency,  and  of  conceded  national  importance.  I  have  had,  more- 
over, a  hope  that  this  great  resource  might  be  applied  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  system  for  the  gradual  but  certain  removal  of  slavery, 
by  a  scheme  of  compensating  emancipation.  I  have  thought  that 
the  slaveholding  states  might  wteely  propose  such  a  system,  and 
that  the  free  states  ought  to  accede  to  it.  But,  sir,  it  is  manifest 
that  if  the  old  states  could  not  agree  upon  such  a  system,  or  even 
upon  any  other  system  of  partition  of  the  public  domain  among 
the  states,  or  of  distribution  of  its  proceeds,  while  they  held  un- 
questioned the  political  power  of  government,  they  cannot  now 
hope  to  agree  upon  and  secure  the  adoption  of  such  a  system, 
when  that  power  is  actually  passing  over  from  them  to  the  new 
states.  The  new  states  will  control  the  decision  of  this  great  ques- 
tion. We  may,  nevertheless,  by  yielding  to  what  is  inevitable, 
modify  the  policy  to  be  adopted. 

I  submitted,  Mr.  President,  a  second  principle,  to  wit :  that  the 
public  lands,  so  to  be  granted  to  actual  settlers,  ought  to  be  se- 
cured to  them  against  involuntary  alienation. 

I  respect  all  lawful  contracts,  and  I  would  not  unnecessarily 
interfere  with  even  rigorous  remedies  which  existed  when  such 
contracts  were  made.  But  it  is  wise  as  it  is  just  and  humane,  to 
alleviate  prospectively  the  relations  between  debtor  and  creditor. 
Within  the  last  twenty  years,  imprisonment  for  debt,  a  system 
which  had  prevailed  for  more  than  two  thousand  years  before,  has 
been  safely  abolished  by  every  state  in  this  Union,  and  I  believe 
by  every  commercial  nation  in  Europe.  New  York,  the  most 
commercial  state,  has  with  equal  safety  abolished  the  rigorous 
remedy  of  distress  for  rent,  and  has  exempted  certain  portions  of 
estates  from  liability  to  sale  for  debts  contracted  after  such  laws 


168  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

were  passed.  Other  states  have  adopted  the  policy  of  protecting 
the  homestead  from  compulsory  sale.  A  home  is  the  first  neces- 
sity of  every  family ;  it  is  indispensable  to  the  education  and  qual- 
ification of  citizens.  Cannot  society  justly  withdraw  it  from  the 
hazards  of  commercial  contracts,  and  from  exposure  to  the  accidents 
of  disease  and  death  ?  We  bestow  pensions  upon  decayed  soldiers 
who  have  faithfully  served  their  country  in  her  wars ;  we  pro- 
tecr.  such  annuities  against  involuntary  assignment ;  and  the  policy 
is  as  wise  as  it  is  generous.  But  he  who  reclaims  an  acre  of  land 
from  the  sterility  of  nature,  and  brings  it  into  a  productive  condi- 
tion, confers  a  greater  benefit  upon  the  state  than  valor  has  often 
the  power  to  bestow.  Sir,  all  that  is  movable  in  property  may  be 
used  as  a  security  for  credits — and  that  security  is  adequate  to 
supply  all  the  wants  of  commerce.  The  home  of  the  farmer,  the 
asylum  of  the  children  of  the  republic,  may  be  safely  reserved  and 
protected. 

There  remains,  Mr.  President,  a  third  principle,  which  I  think 
demands  the  consideration  of  Congress,  which  is  :  That  the  admin- 
istration of  the  public  lands  within  the  states  should  be  relinquished 
to  them. 

It  has  been  sufficiently  shown,  that  the  United  States  can  no 
longer  derive  any  financial  benefit  from  the  domain.  They  can 
at  best  only  hope  to  devote  it  to  purposes  of  internal  improve- 
ment and  education.  Experience  has  taught  us  nothing,  if  it  has 
not  shown  that  the  action  of  Congress  upon  those  interests  is  less 
judicious  and  beneficent  than  the  action  of  the  several  states.  Of 
all  the  railroads,  canals,  and  other  works  of  internal  improvement 
— of  all  the  universities,  colleges,  and  schools,  in  the  country,  the 
states  are,  almost  exclusively,  the  projectors,  founders,  and  patrons. 
To  maintain  that  the  United  States  can  select  such  objects,  and 
apply  the  public  lands  to  the  attainment  of  them,  more  wisely 
than  the  states  could  do,  is  to  controvert  the  principle  of  our 
Constitution,  which  assigns  domestic  interests  and  aftairs  to  local 
administration.  Sir,  we  have  only  a  temporary  jurisdiction  and 
a  temporary  estate  in  the  domain — both  of  which  are  of  brief 
duration,  and  comparatively  valueless.  The  reversion  of  both  be- 
longs to  the  states,  and  is  infinitely  important  to  them.  It  is  not 
until  that  reversion  has  taken  place  that  the  domain  really  begins 
to  contribute  to  the  wealth  and  strength  of  the  whole  republic. 

Nor  am  I  greatly  embarrassed  by  the  objection  that  the  new 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  169 

states  would  derive  an  unequal  share  of  the  benefits  from  what  is 
justly  called  a  "  common  estate."  If  all  the  public  lands  lying 
within  their  limits  were  released  to  them,  they  would  still  be 
inferior  to  the  older  states  in  the  advantages  of  capital,  labor,  and 
commercial  position.  Every  dollar  of  revenue  which- we  should 
release,  would  remain  within  the  new  states,  enhancing  their 
ability  to  construct  channels  of  trade,  and  to  found  systems  of 
education — while  their  own  increasing  wealth  and  prosperity 
would  equally  increase  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  old 
states,  with  whom  they  are  intimately  related  and  indissolubly 
connected. 

The  Senator  from  Michigan  is  alarmed  with  apprehensions  that 
the  simplicity  and  certainty  of  titles  would  be  put  in  jeopardy,  by 
a  transfer  of  the  public  lands  to  the  states.  But,  sir,  our  machin- 
ery of  title,  which  is  so  perfect,  could  be  at  once  transferred  to  the 
states,  and  they  could  operate  it  with  increased  efficiency,  and 
with  economy,  which  is  unknown  to  us.  ~No  one  could  defend 
for  a  moment  the  principle  that  the  Federal  Government  ought  to 
retain  the  domain,  with  all  its  expenses  of  administration,  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  conferring  titles  in  it,  upon  the  citizens  of  the 
states. 

The  possession  of  the  domain,  moreover,  creates  relations  of 
landlord  and  tenant,  of  patronage  and  dependency,  between  the 
government  and  the  states,  injurious  to  both.  This  has  been 
an  inconvenience  hitherto  unavoidable,  and  it  ought  to  be  con- 
tinued no  longer  than  shall  be  required  by  a  paramount  national 
interest. 

I  shall  consider,  Mr.  President,  very  briefly,  the  power  of  Con- 
gress in  the  premises.  So  far  as  the  constitution  is  concerned,  I 
shall  pass  by  all  commentaries  and  all  glosses,  and  take  my 
stand  upon  the  simple  text—"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to 
dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting 
the  territory  and  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States." 
The  power  of  disposition  thus  conferred  is  general,  unlimited,  abso- 
lute. It  is  the  same  power  that  Congress  has  to  dispose  of  forts, 
magazines,  arsenals,  edifices,  or  ships.  They  have  power  to  sell. 
They  have  power  to  give.  Of  course  the  power  should  be  exer- 
cised in  this  as  in  all  other  cases,  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
nation,  but  the  discretion  of  Congress  is  not  abridged. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  supposed  limitations  in  the  deeds  of 


170  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

cession  ;  for  the  rights  of  the  states  are  secured  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. There  are  several  grants  which,  it  has  been  seen,  are 
expressed  in  different  forms.  It  is  not  the  form  employed  in  any 
one  of  the  grants,  but  the  general  spirit  and  effect  of  them  all, 
that  explain,  and  define  the  power  conveyed.  New  York,  Massa- 
chusetts, and  Connecticut,  release,  by  language  broad  and  compre- 
hensive. They  conveyed  "  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States." 

Virginia  and  other  states  amplified,  but  manifestly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  expressing  the  same  meaning  more  fully.  They  granted 
"  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,"  and  declared  that 
the  estate  and  jurisdiction  conferred  should  "  be  considered  as  a 
common  fund  of  all  the  states,  according  to  their  usual  respective 
proportions  in  the  general  charge  and  expenditure,  and  should  be 
faithfully  and  bona  fide  disposed  of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no 
other  purpose  whatsoever."  This  language  was  adopted  with 
reference  to  the  then  existing  articles  of  confederation,  under 
which  the  states  were  charged  with  contributions  for  the  support 
of  the  federal  government,  which  system  was  afterwards  modified 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  dispense  with 
contributions  from  the  states,  and  invest  Congress  with  power  of 
taxation  upon  imposts,  and  of  direct  taxation,  according  to  repre- 
sentative population.  Certainly  the  terms  of  these  grants  were 
not  intended  to  confine  Congress  to  a  disposition  of  the  lands  by 
sale  only :  Because,  first,  they  expressed  no  such  thing ;  and  be- 
cause, secondly,  the  political  jurisdiction,  as  well  as  the  right  of 
soil,  were  included  in  the  designation  of  "  a  common  fund." 

Again :  It  would  be  practically  impossible,  under  any  system 
whatever,  to  secure  'equal  benefits  from  the  domain  to  all  the 
states.  If  you  sell  the  lands  in  Ohio,  you  may  divide  the  avails 
between  that  state  and  all  her  sister  states,  but  the  land  will 
still  remain,  yielding  power  and  wealth,  directly  to  Ohio,  forever ; 
while  the  other  states  can  be  only  indirectly  recipients  of  such 
benefits. 

What  was  intended  then  was  simply  this  :  that  whatever  dispo- 
sition Congress  should  make  of  the  domain,  should  be  one  purely 
national  and  impartial.  It  seems  to  me  to  mean  nothing  more, 
and  the  Constitution  expresses  that  meaning  fully.  If,  then,  the 
adoption  of  such  principles  as  I  have  discussed  has  become  neces- 
sary already,  or  shall  hereafter  become  necessary,  the  policy  would 


THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN.  171 

then  be  a  proper  exercise  of  the  constitutional  power,  and  would  fall 
within  the  trust  as  defined  by  the  deeds  of  cession. 

Tliis  is  a  subject  of  vast  importance.  It  reaches  across  the 
whole  basis  of  the  great  empire  which  is  rising  on  this  continent, 
and  forward  through  all  the  stages  of  its  elevation,  and  even  of 
its  decline  and  fall,  if  it  shall  not  be  perpetual.  Posterity,  and 
perhaps  the  civilized  world,  will  review  our  decisions  in  the 
light  reflected  on  them  by  their  broad  and  lasting  consequences. 
May  they  be  such  as  will  safely  abide  so  severe  and  so  impartial 
a  scrutiny. 


172  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATR 


WELCOME   TO   LOUIS   KOSSUTH. 

DECEMBER   9,    1851. 

THE  following  joint  resolution,  submitted  by  Mr.  SEWARD,  was  under  considera- 
tion. 

Resolved  by  ilie  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  give  to  Louis  Kossuth  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  capital  and  to 
the  country;  and  that  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  transmitted  to  him  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  I  have  said  that  I  should  refrain  from  discuss- 
ing this  question  on  its  merits  at  the  present  time.  I  will  advert 
simply  to  the  circumstances  under  which  it  comes  before  Congress. 
If  the  distinguished  personage,  whom  it  is  the  design  of  this  reso- 
lution to  honor,  had  floated  upon  our  shores  unbidden  and  un- 
heralded, there  wrould  have  been  no  great  embarrassment  in 
suffering  his  arrival  to  pass  without  notice  by  Congress  ;  but  the 
case  is  widely  different.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  found 
him  a  prisoner  in  Asia  Minor — an  exile  from  his  native  land,  in 
an  effort  for  the  redemption  of  which  he  had  fallen.  They  re- 
quired the  President  of  the  United  States  to  express  to  him  the 
sympathy  of  Congress  in  his  exile  and  misfortunes,  and  to  tender 
to  him  an  invitation  to  come  to  America  as  an  asylum,  in  one  of 
the  public  vessels  of  the  nation.  The  President  executed  these 
instructions,  and  in  pursuance  of  them,  it  is  known  to  all  the 
world  that  Kossuth  wras  liberated  from  his  captivity,  and  that  he 
is  now  upon  our  shores.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  in 
anticipation  of  his  arrival,  informed  Congress  on  their  assembling 
at  the  present  session,  that  he  had  executed  their  instructions,  and 
that  the  arrival  of  this  illustrious  man  was  hourly  expected,  and 
recommended  to  us  to  take  into  consideration  the  proper  manner  and 


WELCOME  TO   KOSSUTH.  173 

ceremonial  of  receiving  the  guest  who  had  been  brought  here 
under  their  authority.  This  of  itself  was  sufficient  to  engage  the 
attention  of  the  civilized  world  for  the  action  of  Congress  in  rela- 
tion to  the  personage  whose  name  and  fame  filled  the  eye  and  ear 
of  the  world.  But  the  action  of  government  has  not  stopped  here. 
In  pursuance  of  this  recommendation,  and  at  the  instance  of  the 
President  and  the  administration,  the  subject  has  been  introduced 
into  this  chamber — a  debate  has  opened  upon  the  question  sub- 
mitted by  the  President.  Under  such  circumstances  absolute 
silence  would  amount  to  nothing  short  of  neglect,  and  neglect 
would  be  liable  to  be  construed,  in  my  poor  judgment,  into  indig- 
nity. It  is  under  these  circumstances  that  this  question  comes 
before  Congress,  and  I  am  sure  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  Senate 
that  their  treatment  of  Kossuth  should  be  that  of  either  neglect 
or  indignity.  But  if  such  would  be  the  result,  the  consequence 
would  be  the  inflicting  of  a  wound  upon  the  generous  and  noble 
heart  of  a  friend  of  liberty,  whose  gratitude  we  have  awakened 
and  stimulated,  and  in  whose  bosom  we  have  kindled  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  warm,  a  generous,  a  cordial  welcome.  The  effect  would 
be  this  upon  him.  The  effect  upon  his  country  would  be  to  sub- 
due the  feelings  of  affection  and  gratitude  which  the  expression 
of  sympathy  in  her  misfortunes  heretofore  has  awakened.  The 
effect  of  it  would  be  to  discourage  the  hopes  and  expectations  of 
the  friends  of  freedom  throughout  the  world ;  and  finally,  to  en- 
courage the  advocates  of  oppression  throughout  Europe  in  their 
efforts  to  prevent  the  transition  of  the  nations  of  that  continent 
from  under  the  system  of  force  to  the  voluntary  system  of  govern- 
ment which  we  have  established  and  commended  to  their  adop- 
tion. Under  such  circumstances,  I  was  not  at  liberty  to  consent 
to  be  understood  as  being  willing  to  allow  the  arrival  of  Kossuth 
in  the  United  States  to  pass  unnoticed.  In  order  that  I  might 
put  myself  right,  and  give  an  opportunity  to  others  who  might 
agree  with  me  in  opinion  to  put  themselves  right,  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  submit  a  proposition  which  would  avoid  the  consequences 
which  have  been  deplored,  and  bring  this  question  before  Con- 
gress in  a  shape  so  unexceptionable  that  it  seemed  to  me  all  might 
agree  in  adopting  it. 

A  word  now  upon  the  form  of  reception,  or  welcome,  which  I 
propose.     It  is  not  the  form  which  I  myself  would  originally  have 
wished.     I  have  no  particular  tenacity  in  regard  to  it.     The  pro- 
YOL.  1—12. 


174:  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

position  submitted  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr. 
FOOTE]  would  have  received  my  vote ;  it  would  have  received  it 
if  it  had  said  more,  as  was  proposed  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Xew  Hampshire,  [Mr.  HALE.]  It  would  have  received  it  if 
it  had  said  less.  It  would  have  received  my  support  under  any 
circumstances,  if  it  had  been  pressed,  and  I  should  have  endeavor- 
ed to  have  co-operated  with  the  honorable  mover  of  it  in  avoiding 
any  amendment  which  might  have  embarrassed  its  passage  through 
the  Senate.  But  that  question  has  passed  away ;  and  in  looking 
around  for  what  might  be  substituted  by  us,  it  seemed  to  me  that, 
if  there  was  one  sentiment  more  plainly  and  universally  expressed 
by  the  American  people  than  any  other,  in  regard  to  the  Hunga- 
rian revolution,  and  in  regard  to  its  hero,  the  champion  of  Hun- 
farv,  it  was  that  of  WELCOME  TO  THE  SHOEES  or  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Taking  that  idea  as  my  guide,  I  have  submitted  a  resolution  in 
which  it  is  proposed  that  Congress  shall  declare  that  they  give  to 
Louis  Kossuth,  whom  they  have  brought  to  our  borders,  a  cordial 
WELCOME. 

Less  than  this,  Mr.  President,  no  man  can  propose  who  thinks  it 
proper  to  make  any  expression,  or  to  take  any  action  ;  and  more 
than  this,  it  seems  to  me,  must  be  waived.  It  must  be  something 
like  this,  or  nothing,  and  this  is  better  than  nothing.  I  would 
have  the  passage  of  this  resolution  communicated  to  Kossuth  by 
the  President,  the  executive  organ  of  the  nation.  My  own  feel- 
ings would  exact  more ;  but  I  am  content  to  waive  more  under 
this  consideration — that  the  simplicity  of  the  act  will  give  it  a 
peculiar  value.  I  know  not,  in  the  history  of  this  nation — I  know 
not  in  the  history  of  modern  times,  a  more  sublime  spectacle  than 
would  be  afforded  by  seeing  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  name  and  behalf  of  the  American  people,  bidding  Kossuth, 
the  representative  of  the  cause  of  voluntary  government  in  Europe, 
a  cordial  welcome  on  his  escape  from  the  perils  of  his  position, 
and  his  arrival  in  this  land  where  that  system  of  government  is 
established  and  in  full  operation. 

There  is  a  simplicity  in  this  ceremony  which  is  worthy  the 
dignity  of  the  American  government  and  the  greatness  of  the 
American  people  ;  there  is  a  simplicity  in  it  worthy  the  character 
of  the  illustrious  man  whom  it  is  proposed  to  honor.  I  have  no 
tenacity  in  regard  to  this  measure  in  preference  to  any  other 
which  would  make  me  insist  on  this  at  the  hazard  of  its  defeat. 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  175 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  preferable  to  that  of  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Illinois,  and  gentlemen  say  that  they  do  prefer  it  upon  the 
ground  that  this  would  be  the  joint  act  of  both  houses  of  Con- 
gress. I  am  quite  sure  that  if  adopted  here  it  would  be  con- 
curred in  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  would  thus 
become  a  national  act  of  welcome.  I  confess  that  I  am  desirous 
that,  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  caused  Kossuth  to  be 
brought  here  under  their  authority,  his  reception  should  be  a 
national  act ;  and  that  Congress  should  not  be  divided  in  its 
expression  or  its  action  on  this  the  crowning  occasion  of  the 
whole.  This  form  also  seems  to  me  to  commend  itself  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Senate,  because  it  stops  short  of  committing  Con- 
gress or  the  government  to  any  action  beyond  that  of  simply 
giving  welcome.  What  I  desire  is  not  the  utterance  of  words. 
What  I  want  to  see — what  I  want  to  have  Congress  do,  is  to 
extend  the  welcome  which  the  world  expects  us  to  give  to  the 
illustrious  exile. 

Objections  have  been  made,  to  which  I  will  advert  very  briefly. 
It  has  been  said  or  intimated  that  we  are  not  well  aware  of  what 
we  are  doing' — that  we  are  not  well  acquainted  with  the  character 
of  Kossuth — that  we  do  not  know  certainly  that  he  is  entitled  to 
these  attentions  from  the  American  people.  Sir,  in  the  course  of 
human  events,  we  see  the  nations  of  Europe  struggling  to  throw 
off  their  despotic  systems  of  government,  and  to  establish  govern- 
ments upon  the  principle  of  republicanism  or  of  constitutional 
monarchy.  Whenever  such  efforts  are  made,  we  see  it  invariably 
happen  that  the  existing  despotisms  of  Europe  combine  to  repress 
those  struggles — combine  to  subdue  the  people.  The  consequence 
is,  that  despotism  is  a  common  cause,  and  it  results  also  that  the 
cause  of  constitutional  liberty  has  also  become  one  common  cause 
— the  cause  of  mankind  against  despotism.  Now  whatever  people  ""7 
leads  the  way  at  any  time  in  any  crisis  in  this  contest  for  civil  / 
liberty,  becomes  the  representative  of  the  nations  of  the  earth.  I 
We  once  occupied  that  proud  and  interesting  position,  and  we 
engaged  the  sympathies  of  civilized  men  throughout  the  world. 
]STo  one  can  deny,  that  recently  Hungary  assumed  that  same 
position ;  and  the  records  of  our  own  legislature  show  that  we, 
in  common  with  the  friends  of  civil  liberty  in  Europe,  held 
Hungary  to  be  the  representative  of  the  nations  of  the  earth  in 


176  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

this  great  cause.  We  had  a  messenger  on  the  verge  of  the  battle- 
field ready  to  acknowledge  her  independence. 

Mr.  President,  it  happens,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  that  when- 
ever a  nation  thus  assumes  to  open  this  controversy  for  liberty,  in 
behalf  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  some  one  man  more  than 
another  becomes  identified  with  the  struggle  by  his  virtues,  by 
his  valor,  by  his  wisdom,  or  by  his  sufferings,  until  he  eclipses 
others  who  may  be  associated  with  him,  and  comes  to  be  regarded 
by  the  country  itself,  in  whose  behalf  he  labors  and  struggles, 
and  by  mankind,  as  the  representative  of  that  nation,  and  of  that 
cause.  The  deliverance  of  Switzerland  brings  up  at  once  the 
name  of  William  Tell.  The  struggle  of  Scotland  calls  up  the 
name  of  Wallace  ;  and  all  over  the  world  no  man  ever  hears  the 
American  Revolution  spoken  of,  but  it  calls  up  the  majestic  form 
of  Washington  !  So  it  happens  that  the  name  of  Hungary  calls 
up  at  once  the  great,  the  towering  fame  of  the  author,  the  hero, 
and  the  sufferer  of  the  Hungarian  Revolution.  Now,  then,  shall 
we  say  that  we  do  not  know  that  Kossuth  is  worthy  to  be  regarded 
as  the  friend  and  advocate  of  liberty  in  his  own  country  ?  Shall 
we  say  that  he  does  not  merit  the  homage  paid  to  him  as  the 
leader  of  the  Hungarian  Revolution  ?  Hungary  herself  has  set 
the  seal  upon  his  merits,  and  concluded  that  question,  and  it 
would  be  as  unreasonable  and  absurd  to  listen  to  those  who 
should  depreciate  the  principles  or  the  character  of  Washington, 
as  it  is  to  stand  doubting  or  hesitating  whether,  in  honoring  Kos- 
suth,  we  are  really  doing  honor  to  his  cause,  and  the  cause  of  his 
unfortunate  country. 

But  it  is  asked,  Why  should  the  American  people  engage  in 
paying  this  homage  to  Kossuth,  when,  granting  all  his  merits,  he 
has  nevertheless  done  nothing  for  America  ?  True,  he  never  did 
anything  for  America.  We  have  reached  that  time  when  no  man 
living  out  of  America  can  confer  upon  us  a  benefit.  We  are  be- 
yond the  reach  of  beneficence  other  than  at  the  hand  of  the  Great 
Creator  and  Preserver  of  nations  ;  but  do  we  honor  only  those,  do 
we  reward  only  those  who  confer  benefits  upon  us  ?  Certainly 
not.  We  honor  those  who  serve  the  common  cause  of  civil  liberty 
throughout  the  world.  That  cause  is  our  own  cause.  We  there- 
fore honor  those  who  advance  and  promote  it.  But,  although 
Kossuth  has  done  nothing  for  this  country,  Europe  has.  It  has 
sent  us  a  Lafayette,  a  Kosciusko,  a  De  Kalb,  and  a  Steuben,  and 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  177 

thus  lias  created  a  debt  against  us,  which,  while  we  cannot  pay  to 
the  illustrious  dead,  we  can  discharge  toward  fit  and  lawful 
representatives,  in  the  persons  of  the  illustrious  living. 

I  shall  notice  a  single  other  objection,  and  then  I  shall  leave 
this  resolution  to  its  fate.  It  is  an  apprehension  that,  by  the 
adoption  of  this,  or  a  similar  motion,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  will  commit  itself  to  some  act  of  intervention  in  the  affairs 
of  Europe  by  which  the  government  of  the  United  States  may  be 
embarrassed  in  its  foreign  relations.  Mr.  President,  I  am  a  lover 
of  peace.  I  shall  never  freely  give  my  consent  to  any  measure 
which  I  shall  think  will  tend  to  involve  this  nation  in  the  calami- 
ties of  foreign  war.  I  believe  that  our  mission  is  a  mission  of 
republicanism.  But  I  believe  that  we  shall  best  execute  it  by 
maintaining  peace  at  home  and  with  all  mankind  ;  and  if  I  saw 
in  this  measure  a  step  in  advance  toward  the  bloody  field  of  con- 
tention in  the  affairs  of  Europe,  I,  too,  would  hesitate  long  before 
adopting  it.  But  I  see  no  advance  toward  any  such  danger  in 
doing  a  simple  act  of  national  justice  and  magnanimity.  I  be- 
lieve that  no  man  will  deny  the  principle,  that  a  nation  may  do 
for  the  cause  of  liberty  in  other  nations  whatever  the  laws  of 
nations  do  not  forbid.  I  plant  myself  upon  that  principle.  What 
the  laws  of  nations  do  not  forbid,  any  nation  may  do  for  the  cause 
of  civil  liberty  in  any  other  nation,  in  any  other  country.  Now, 
the  laws  of  nations  do  not  forbid  hospitality.  The  laws  of  nations 
do  not  forbid  us  to  sympathize  with  the  exile — to  sympathize  with 
the  overthrown  champion  of  freedom.  The  laws  of  nature  de- 
mand that  hospitality,  and  from  the  very  inmost  sources  of  our 
nature  springs  up  that  sympathy.  What  is  that  great  epic  poem 
which  has  filled  the  second  place  in  the  admiration,  I  had  almost 
said  in  the  affections,  of  mankind  for  two  thousand  years,  but  the 
history  of  an  exile  flying  from  the  walls  of  his  burning  city  and 
devoted  state  ?  Sir,  the  law^s  of  nature  require — the  laws  of 
nations  command  hospitality  to  those  who  fly  from  oppression  and 
despair.  And  this  is  all  that  we  have  done,  and  all  that  we  pro- 
pose to  do.  We  have  invited  Kossuth — we  have  procured  his 
release  from  captivity — we  have  brought  him  here — and  we  pro- 
pose to  say  to  him,  standing  upon  our  shores  with  his  eye  directed 
to  us,  and  while  we  know  that  the  eyes  of  the  civilized  world  are 
fixed  upon  him  and  us,  "  Louis  Kossuth,  in  the  name  of  the  Ame- 
rican people,  we  bid  you  a  cordial  welcome." 


178  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


WELCOME  TO   LOUIS   KOSSUTH. 

DECEMBER,    12,    1851. 

I  WILL  suppose  now  that  the  opposition  made  to  this  resolution 
is  effective.  I  will  suppose  that  the  measure  is  defeated.  Let  us 
look  to  the  consequences  beyond.  What  are  they  ?  Kossuth, 
admitted  here  to  be  the  representative  of  the  down-trodden  con- 
stitutional liberties  of  his  own  country,  and  the  representative  of 
the  up-rising  liberties  of  Europe,  shakes  from  his  feet  the  dust 
that  has  gathered  upon  them  on  American  shores,  and  returns  to 
the  Eastern  continent — returns  upon  a  point  of  honor  with  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  therefore,  in  a  practical  view, 
returns,  as  he  will  say,  and  those  devoted  to  his  cause  will  say, 
repulsed,  driven  back.  Where  then,  sir,  shall  he  find  welcome 
and  repose  ?  In  his  own  beautiful  native  land,  at  the  base  or  on 
the  slopes  of  the  Carpathian  hills  ?  No !  the  Austrian  despot 
reigns  absolutely  there.  Shall  he  find  it  in  Germany,  east  or  west, 
north  or  south  ?  No,  sir  ;  the  despot  of  Austria  and  the  despot 
of  Prussia  reign  absolutely  there.  Shall  he  find  it  under  the  sunny 
skies  of  Italy  ?  No,  sir  ;  for  the  Austrian  monarch  has  crushed 
Italy  to  the  earth.  Shall  he  find  it  in  Siberia,  or  in  the  frozen 
regions  of  the  North?  No,  sir;  for  the  Russian  Czar,  who  drove 
him  from  his  native  land  and  forced  him  into  exile  in  Turkey, 
will  be  ready  to  seize  the  fugitive.  The  scaffold  awaits  him  there. 
Where  shall  he  go  ?  Shall  he  seek  protection  again  from  the 
sceptred  Turk  ?  The  Turk  would  say,  You  have  eaten  my  salt  as 
a  voluntary  captive,  and  I  sheltered  you  until  you  left  me  under 
the  seductions  of  the  republic  of  the  United  States.  If  you  come 
now,  the  laws  of  my  country  and  of  my  God  will  not  oblige  or 
allow  me  to  hazard  the  peace  of  my  own  people  again  to  extend 
protection  over  you.  Where,  then,  shall  he  go  ?  Where  else  on 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  179 

the  face  of  broad  Europe  can  he  find  refuge  but  in  the  land  of 
your  forefathers,  in  Britain  ?  There,  God  be  thanked,  there  would 
be  a  welcome  and  a  home  for  him.  Are  you  prepared  to  give  to 
the  world  evidence  that  you  cannot  receive  the  representative  of 
liberty  and  republicanism,  whom  England  can  honor,  shelter,  and 
protect  ? 

But,  Mr.  President,  will  this  transaction  end  there  ?  I  1'ancy 
that  I  see  the  exile  wending  his  lonely  way,  with  downcast  looks, 
along  the  streets  and  thoroughfares  of  the  great  metropolis  of 
Britain  and  the  world,  forsaken  and  abandoned,  but  not  forgotten. 
Will  it  end  in  that  ?  No,  sir.  Beyond  us,  above  us,  there  is  a 
tribunal,  higher  and  greater  than  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  a  tribunal  whose  existence  and  jurisdiction  and 
authority  we  have  acknowledged,  and  to  whose  judgment-seat  we 
have  already  called  the  Turk,  the  Austrian,  and  the  Russian,  to 
account  for  their  action  in  regard  to  Hungary  and  to  Kossuth. 
It  is  the  tribunal  of  the  public  opinion  of  the  world — the  public 
opinion  of  mankind.  Sir,  that  tribunal  is  unerring  in  its  judg- 
ments. It  is  constituted  of  the  great,  the  wTise,  and  the  good  of 
all  nations— not  only  of  the  great,  and  wise,  and  good  who  are 
now  living,  but  of  the  great,  the  wise,  and  the  good  of  all  ages. 
Before  that  tribunal,  states,  great  and  small,  are  equal.  Ay, 
before  that  tribunal  the  proudest  empire  is  equaled  by  its  humblest 
citizen  or  subject.  Yes,  the  Indian  and  the  serf  are  equal  there 
to  the  American  Republic  and  to  the  Russian  Empire.  I  know 
no  living  man  entitled  by  the  consent  of  Christendom  to  preside 
in  that  august  tribunal.  But  there  is  a  venerable  form  that  seems 
to  rise  up  before  me,  and  all  the  congregated  nations  and  people 
deferentially  make  way  as  he  advances  and  takes  the  judgment- 
seat.  It  is  the  shade  of  Franklin.  And  there  I  see  the  parties 
opposed.  On  the  one  side  stands  Hungary,  downcast  and  sorrow- 
ful, but  she  is  surrounded  by  the  people  of  many  lands,  who  wait 
her  redemption  and  their  own.  On  the  other  side  I  see  the  United 
States  of  America,  sustained — most  singular  conjunction  ! — by  the 
youthful  and  impatient  Bonaparte,  the  sickly  successor  of  the 
Romans,  and  the  Czar  of  all  the  Russias.  I  hear  the  impeach- 
ment read.  It  is,  that  the  United  States  have  dishonored  and 
insulted  the  unfortunate  representative  of  unfortunate  Hungary  ; 
that  they  found  him  a  captive  in  Asia  Minor,  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Turk,  but  subjected  to  the  surveillance  of  the  Russian 


180  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

tyrant ;  that  they  addressed  to  him  words  of  sympathy  and  hope, 
and  that  they  brought  to  the  doors  of  his  captivity  a  national 
vessel,  with  their  time-honored  flag,  and  bade  him  to  come  upon 
its  deck  and  be  conveyed  to  a  land  of  constitutional  freedom — a 
land  where  the  advocates  and  champions  of  universal  liberty 
were  sure  to  enjoy  respect  and  sympathy,  and  fraternal  welcome  ; 
and  that  when  they  had  so  seduced  him  from  a  place  of  obscu- 
rity, but  of  safety,  and  had  thus  brought  him  to  their  own  shores, 
and  when  he  stood  waiting  there  for  one  simple  word  of  wel- 
come, one  simple  look  of  recognition,  they  turned  away  from 
him,  spurned  him  from  their  presence,  and  cast  him  back  upon 
the  charities  of  Christian  or  Turk,  in  whatever  land  they  might  be 
found. 

That  is  the  impeachment.  And  the  United  States  hold  up  the 
right  hand  and  answer,  "  !N"ot  guilty."  I  see  the  books  of  testi- 
mony opened  on  behalf  of  Hungary.  Here  they  are.  A  resolu- 
tion of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America,  passed  in 
the  year  1850,  tendering  the  hospitalities  of  the  nation,  and  the 
use  of  a  national  ship,  to  Louis  Kossuth  ;  then  the  message  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  1851,  calling  upon  Congress  to 
say  what  shall  be  the  ceremonial  of  receiving  him  who  has  been 
brought  here  under  their  authority  ;  and  then  the  record  of  this 
Senate,  that  upon  a  division  of  its  members,  a  resolution  of  wel- 
come was  rejected.  That  constitutes  the  case  on  the  part  of 
Hungary.  Sir,  the  United  States  appear  in  that  august  tribunal 
by  learned  and  eloquent  defenders  and  advocates.  I  see  there 
my  ardent  and  enthusiastic  young  friend  from  Alabama,  [Mr. 
CLEMENS,]  and  the  candid  and  learned  Senator  from  Kentucky, 
[Mr.  UNDERWOOD,]  the  impulsive  and  generous  Senator  from 
Georgia,  [Mr.  DAWSON,]  the  very  learned  and  astute  advocate 
the  honorable  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  [Mr.  BADGER]  and, 
lastly,  he  who  holds  the  first  place  in  our  veneration  of  living 
senators,  save  only  one,  [Mr.  CLAY]  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Georgia,  [Mr.  BERRIEN.]  I  listen  to  the  long,  elaborate,  and  earnest 
defence  which  they  make  against  this  impeachment.  Hungary 
declines  to  reply ;  and  Kossuth,  the  orator  of  modern  times,  upon 
whom  she  leans  for  support,  for  the  first  time  overcome  by  a  sense 
of  cruel  insult,  is  silent,  dumb. 

The  defence  is  weighed  by  that  august  Shade,  in  whose  placid 
countenance  I  read  at  once  the  sagacity  of  the  lightning  hunter 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  181 

and  the  common  sense  of  Poor  Richard :  "  You  say,  that  your 
invitation  to  the  Magyar  'justified  on  his  part  and  on  the  part  of 
Hungary  no  expectation  of  a  welcome.'  How,  then,  came  Kos- 
suth,  how  came  Hungary,  how  came  the  world,  how  came  you. 
how  came  your  President  to  misunderstand  the  invitation  which 
was  addressed  to  the  exile  ?  When  did  you  first  revise  your 
diplomacy  to  ascertain  to  what  extent  you  might  abridge  the  hos- 
pitalities to  which  you  had  invited  him  ?  Not  until  you  were 
committed  before  the  world.  You  say  that  '  Kossuth  was  invited 
to  be  a  resident,  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  yet 
that  he  came,  on  the  contrary,  as  a  transient  guest.'  Grant  it ; 
what  then  ?  Is  a  welcome  less  due  to  him  whom  you  have  invited 
as  a  perpetual  guest,  when  he  comes  to  thank  you  and  decline  the 
courtesy,  than  if  he  had  accepted  it  and  had  become  a  perpetual 
charge  upon  your  hospitalities  ?  You  say  that  the  honors  to  Kos- 
suth '  were  moved  in  your  Senate  by  ambitious  aspirants  for  place 
and  distinction.'  Has,  then,  my  country  degenerated  so  much 
that  there  are  no  true,  genuine  patriots  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  who  could  lead  that  illustrious  body  in  the  discharge  of  so 
great  a  national  obligation  ?  You  plead  that  the  Hungarian  chief 
fc  was  a  noble  by  birth,  an  aristocrat  by  education  and  association, 
and  that  he  had  devoted  himself  in  an  eifort  not  to  disseminate  the 
spirit  of  universal  liberty,  but  to  fortify  the  privileges  of  the 
Magyar  race?'  If  that  be  so,  did  you  not  know  it  when  you 
invited  him  ?  If  you  did  not,  how  can  you  justify  your  ignorance  of 
a  character  that  was  blazoned  to  the  world  ?  But  it  is  not  true. 
Kossuth's  first  public  action  in  early  youth,  was  an  effort,  through 
the  Hungarian  Diet,  to  extend  equal  privileges  of  representation, 
of  suffrage,  and  of  taxation,  to  all  the  people  of  Hungary,  without 
distinction  of  rank,  or  caste,  or  race.  For  his  fidelity  to  the  great 
cause  of  human  equality  and  freedom,  he  was  imprisoned  three 
long  years  in  a  dungeon  in  the  castle  of  Buda  by  the  hand  of  the 
Austrian  despot.  When  he  came  out  from  that  captivity,  he  com- 
menced that  career  of  agitation  for  the  restoration  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  his  country,  which  ended  with  success  in  the  year  1848. 
When  he  had  wrung  that  charter  from  the  Emperor  of  Austria, 
his  constitutional  king,  the  first  exercise  of  Hungarian  authority 
by  the  legislature  which  he  directed,  was  an  act  which  abolished 
all  the  feudal  tenures,  that  brought  land  within  the  reach  of  all, 
and  put  the  Croat,  the  Wallachian,  the  Illyrian,  the  Jew,  and  the 


182 

Magyar,  upon  the  same  platform  of  equality  before  the  law, 
equality  before  the  government,  equality  in  representation,  equal- 
ity in  suffrage,  and  equality  in  enduring  the  burdens  of  govern- 
ment.    It  was  for  this  that  he  was  hunted  from  his  native  land 
and  came  an  exile  to  your  shores.     "Who  pursued  him  there  with 
reproaches  of  falsehood  to  freedom  ?     Not  the  Jew,  the  Croat,  or 
the  Sclave,  but  the  tyrant  of  Austria,  who  has  reduced  all  the 
people  of  Hungary,  of  whatever  rank  or  race  or  caste,  to  the  level 
of  slaves.     You  say  that  you  were  willing  to  give  Kossuth  a  wel- 
come, but  that  he  demanded  more.     How  did  you  know  that  he 
'  demanded  more  ?'    How  did  you  learn  that  Kossuth  demanded 
more  than  a  cordial  welcome  ?     Where  did  he  ask  of  you  even  so 
much  as  a  welcome  ?     Was  it  in  your  capital  ?     To  whom  did  he 
address  his  extravagant  and  offensive  reclamation?     Was  it  to 
your  President  ?  to  your  Ministry  ?  to  your  Congress  ?     No  ;  all 
alike  refused  to  receive  him,  refused  even  to  hear  him  speak,  and 
yet  you  say  he  demanded  too  much.     You  closed  his  mouth  be- 
fore he  had  time  to  tell  you  what  he  thought,  and  what  he  wanted, 
or  whether  he  wanted  anything.     But  you  reply,  he  was  overheard 
to  say  that  he  expected  arms,  men,  money,  'material  aid,  and 
intervention.'     Overheard  ?    What !  did  you  deliver  Kossuth  from 
Kussian  surveillance  in  Turkey  to  establish  an  espionage  over  him 
of  your  own  ?     Shame !    shame  to   the   country  that  so  lightly 
regards  the  sanctity  of  the  character  of  a  stranger  and  an  exile ! 
But  you  say  that  he  would  have  demanded  intervention.     Suppose 
he  should  have  demanded  intervention  ?    Would  you  have  been  less 
able  to  have  met  that  unreasonable  demand  after  having  accorded 
to  him  the  exact  justice  which  was  his  due,  than  you  are  now 
when  you  have  done  him  injustice,  and  thus  clothed  him  with  the 
sympathies  of  your  people  and  of  mankind  ?     But  you  aver  that 
he  spoke  irreverently  of  your  authority :  he  was  overheard  to  say, 
in  the  outgushing  of  his  gratitude  to  the  generous  people  who 
received  him  on  Staten  Island,  that  the  people  were  the  sovereigns 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  you  cannot  pardon 
that  offence.     What  if  he  did  say  that  ?     Are  not  the  people  the 
sovereigns  of  the  government  of  the  United  States?    Which  one 
of  your  senators  or  representatives  dare  deny  in  his  place  that  the 
people  are  his  sovereigns  ?     But  you  say  that  you  had  a  precedent ; 
that  you  once  took  offence  at  a  minister  of  France  who  assumed 
the  same  position.     You  refer  to  Genet.     But  there  is  no  parallel. 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  183 

Genet  was  a  minister  of  a  government  actually  hostile,  almost 
belligerent.  He  was  in  negotiation,  and  his  demands  were  denied. 
He  took  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  your  government  to  the 
people.  But  Kossuth  is  no  minister.  He  is  your  guest.  He 
went  to  you  not  to  negotiate,  or  to  demand  a  right.  He  went  by 
your  invitation  to  enjoy  your  hospitalities.  You  have  decided 
nothing  against  him.  He  has  submitted  no  appeal.  I  do  not  say 
that  you  ought  to  have  granted  intervention  had  it  been  demand- 
ed. But  I  do  say  this,  that  the  Hungarian  would  have  demanded 
no  more  of  you  than,  in  a  strait  less  severe  than  his,  I  solicited 
and  obtained  for  the  United  States  of  America  from  the  Bourbon 
of  France.  Could  you  not  have  pardoned  him  for  asking  what 
you  had  once  asked  and  obtained  for  yourselves  ?  "Was  it  so  great 
a  fault  in  him  to  suppose  that  now,  in  the  day  of  your  greatness, 
prosperity,  and  power,  you  might  not  be  unwilling  to  do  for  Hun- 
gary what,  in  the  day  of  your  infancy,  poverty,  and  weakness, 
France  had  done  for  yourselves  ?  You  say  you  stand  upon  pre- 
cedent. Precedent  ?  By  whom  established  ?  By  yourselves. 
Was  Hungary  concluded  by  such  a  precedent  ?  And  what  prece- 
dent ?  The  precedent  of  the  reception  given  to  Lafayette  ?  Was 
not  even  that  reception  grudgingly  given  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  ?  If  the  ashes  of  Lafayette  could  be  reanimated, 
and  he  could  present  himself  again  upon  your  shores,  would  you 
not  now  willingly  accord  him  a  greater  than  the  welcome  he  be- 
fore received  at  your  hands — a  welcome,  such  as  it  was  proposed 
to  give  to  Kossuth  ?  Wherein  does  the  parallel  between  Kossuth 
and  Lafayette  fail  ?  Lafayette  began  his  career  as  a  soldier  of 
liberty  in  the  cause  of  your  country ;  but  he  pursued  it  through 
life  in  an  eifort  to  establish  a  republic  in  his  own  beloved  land. 
Kossuth  found  the  duty  which  first  devolved  upon  him  was  to 
wage  a  struggle  for  freedom  in  his  own  country.  When  over- 
borne there,  he  became,  like  Lafayette,  a  champion  of  liberty 
throughout  the  world.  You  say  that  the  Russian  might  have 
taken  offence.  Is  America,  then,  brought  so  low  that  she  fears 
to  give  offence  when  commanded  by  the  laws  of  nature  and  of 
nations  ?  What  right  had  Russia  to  prescribe  whom  you  should 
receive  and  whom  reject  from  your  hospitalities?  Let  no  such 
humiliation  be  confessed." 

Thus  in  the  tribunal  of  the  public  opinion  of  mankind,  all  our 


184  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

pleas  are  disallowed.  We  have  exposed  ourselves  to  the  censure — 
I  will  not  say  to  the  derision,  of  the  world. 

It  is  said,  Mr.  President,  that  there  is  danger  of  intervention  if 
we  accord  these  honors  ;  that  intervention  will  follow  them.  No, 
sir  ;  it  is  not  a  question  of  intervention  future,  but  of  intervention 
past !  There  has  been  intervention  already.  Eussia  has  inter- 
vened, and  Hungary  has  fallen  by  that  crime.  Kossuth  is  an 
exile  upon  our  shores  in  consequence  of  it.  What  we  have  done 
already,  was  by  manifesting  our  sympathy  for  him,  to  express  our 
abhorrence  of  the  intervention  of  Russia,  which  has  worked  so 
great  injustice,  and  to  rebuke  and  prevent  such  intervention  here- 
after. What  do  we  now  propose  to  do  ?  To  grant  a  welcome  to 
Kossuth.  It  is  but  the  fit  conclusion  of  an  action  already  near 
complete.  I  greatly  fear  that  we  do  not  understand  our  own  in- 
terests in  this  great  question.  We  cannot  extinguish  sympathy 
for  freedom  elsewhere,  without  extinguishing  the  spirit  of  freedom 
Avhich  is  the  life  of  our  own  republic. 

Again,  sir,  you  may  reject  Kossuth ;  you  may,  if  you  please, 
propitiate  despotic  favor  by  trampling  the  exiles  of  all  Europe  un- 
der your  feet.  But  what  will  you  have  gained  ?  This  republic 
is,  and  forever  must  be,  a  living  offence  to  Russia  and  to  Austria, 
and  to  despotic  powers  everywhere.  You  will  never,  by  whatever 
humiliations,  gain  one  friend  or  secure  one  ally  in  Europe  or 
America  that  wears  a  crown.  It  is  clear  that  the  days  of  despo- 
tism are  numbered.  We  do  not  know  whether  its  end  is  to  come 
this  year,  or  next  year,  or  the  year  after ;  in  this  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, or  in  this  half  of  a  century.  But  there  is  to  come,  sooner  or 
later,  a  struggle  between  the  representative  and  the  arbitrary  sys- 
tems of  government.  Europe  is  the  field  on  which  that  struggle 
must  take  place.  While  the  representative  principle  is  gaining 
strength  among  the  people,  the  power  of  Russia  is  seen  to  culmi- 
nate. That  struggle  will  be  between  Russia,  whose  power  ex- 
tends across  the  whole  northern  part  of  the  Eastern  Hemisphere, 
and  all  the  people  of  Southern  and  Western  Europe.  If  the  Rus- 
sian autocrat  prevail  in  that  contest,  we  shall  be  left  without 
friends  or  allies  in  the  Eastern  World.  Is  it  wise  to  deny  our- 
selves the  benefits  of  alliances  with  states  kindred  in  political  in- 
terests and  constitutions  ?  Far  otherwise ;  true  wisdom  dictates 
that  we  lend  to  European  nations,  struggling  for  civil  liberty,  all 
possible  moral  aid  to  sustain  them  until  they  can  mature  and 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  185 

perfect  their  strength  for  that  great  conflict,  through  which  they 
are  doomed  to  pass.  The  nations  that  we  thus  lawfully  aid  to 
raise  up,  will  constitute  a  lasting  and  impregnable  bulwark  for 
ourselves. 

NOTE. — The  joint  resolution  was  then  ordered  to  a  third  reading,  by  the  following  vote : 

YEAS— Messrs.  Bradbury,  Bright,  Brodhead,  Cass,  Chase,  Clarke,  Davis,  Dodge  of 
Wisconsin,  Douglas,  Downs,  Felch,  Fish,  Foot  of  Vermont,  Foote  of  Mississippi,  Gwin, 
Hamlin,  Hunter,  James,  Jones  of  Iowa,  King,  Mallory,  Miller,  Norris,  Khett,  Seward, 
Shields,  Smith,  Spruance,  Stockton,  Sumner,  Wade,  Walker,  and  Whitcomb — 83. 

NAYS— Messrs.  Badger,  Borland,  Clemens,  Dawson,  Morton,  and  Underwood — 6. 

The  resolution  was  then  read  a  third  time  and  passed. — ED. 


186  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 


THE   IKISH  PATEIOTS. 

FEBRUARY    11,   1852. 

NOTE. — The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr. 
FOOTE,  of  Mississippi,  on  the  2d  December,  expressive  of  the  sympathy  of  Congress  for 
the  exiled  Irish  patriots,  SMITH  O'BRIEN  and  THOMAS  F.  MEAGHEE,  and  their  associates. 

Mr.  SEWARD  had  proposed  to  amend,  so  that  the  resolution  would  read  as  follows : 

"  That  while  we  disclaim  all  intention  of  interfering  in  any  way  in  the  internal  affairs 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  express,  in  a  cour- 
teous manner,  our  opinion  that  it  would  be  highly  gratifying  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  (many  of  whom  are  natives  of  Ireland,  and  connected  by  blood  with  the  inhabit- 
ants of  that  country,)  to  see  Smith  O'Brien  and  his  associates  restored  to  liberty,  and 
permitted,  if  so  disposed,  to  emigrate  to  this  country.  And  that  this  act  of  clemency 
would  be  regarded  as  a  new  proof  of  the  friendly  disposition  of  the  British  Government 
towards  our  republic,  and  as  calculated  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  affection  now  happily 
existing  between  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland." 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  The  resolution  now  before  the  Senate,  seems  to 
me  neither  inconsiderate  nor  unimportant.  It  is  a  resolution  which 
must  have  the  assent  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  the  appro- 
bation of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  so  it  would  be- 
come a  national  act.  It  recommends — I  might,  perhaps,  say 
solicits — clemency  towards  the  patriots  of  Ireland  who  are  suffer- 
ing imprisonment  in  a  penal  colony ;  and  it  is  designed  for  the 
information  of  the  British  Government,  and  therefore  must  be 
regarded  as  an  appeal  by  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain. 

Sir,  I  think  the  proceeding  is  defensible  upon  the  grounds  of 
abstract  justice  and  propriety,  as  well  as  upon  a  due  consideration 
of  the  relations  of  all  the  parties  concerned. 

I  beg  leave  to  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  not  altogether 
novel  in  character  and  principle.  The  patriots  of  Ireland,  who 
are  the  subjects  of  this  debate,  are  suffering  imprisonment  in  con- 
sequence of  an  effort,  honestly  made,  to  restore  their  native  land 
to  liberty  and  independence.  The  sympathy  expressed  by  this 
resolution  for  them  springs  from  the  same  source  from  which  the 


THE  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  187 

sympathy  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  has  sprung,  which 
has  been  habitually  exhibited  toward  nations  striving  to  assert  the 
same  rights — the  sympathy  which  was  expressed  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States  toward  France  in  1793,  in  1830,  and  in  1848  ; 
toward  Greece,  toward  the  rising  South  American  republics,  to- 
ward Poland,  toward  Germany,  and  toward  Hungary.  Even 
in  form,  sir,  the  measure  assimilates  itself  to  the  action  of  Con- 
gress in  regard  to  Louis  Kossuth,  wTho  has  been,  through  our  inter- 
position, released  from  imprisonment  in  Asia  Minor,  and  brought 
to  our  shores,  received,  and  welcomed  as  a  guest  of  the  United 
States. 

The  interest  which  is  expressed  in  this  resolution  for  William 
Smith  O'Brien,  like  that  which  is  expressed  toward  Louis  Kossuth, 
is  not  merely  personal,  but  it  is  the  reverential  compassion  in- 
dulged by  the  people  of  the  United  States  for  a  fallen  nation  "in 
a  man  compris'd."  It  is  not,  then,  the  cause  of  William  Smith 
O'Brien  alone — it  is  the  cause  of  Ireland. 

The  merits  of  a  nation's  cause,  and  of  its  defenders,  involve  not 
merely  the  particular  accidents  or  incidents  which  bring  the  cause 
before  us,  but  the  whole  life  of  the  nation.  So  it  was  that  our 
forefathers,  in  adopting  the  Declaration  of  American  Independ- 
ence, reviewed  the  entire  colonial  experience  in  vindication  of  the 
act  of  abjuration  of  their  allegiance  to  the  British  throne. 

Ten  centuries  ago,  sir,  Ireland  was  an  independent  nation,  pos- 
sessing the  elements  and  the  forces  of  national  stability.  Ireland 
was  guilty  of  one  enduring  crime — it  was  the  crime  of  proximity 
to  England.  Ireland  labored  under  one  enduring  misfortune — it 
was  the  misfortune  that,  for  many  centuries,  she  had  remained 
unconquered  and  unconquerable.  The  crime  provoked  the  cupid- 
ity of  England,  the  misfortune  begat  divisions  into  septs  and  clans, 
and  these  civil  distractions  favored  an  invader.  At  the  very  mo- 
ment, sir,  when  Henry,  a  Norman  King  of  England — the  second 
of  that  name,  I  think — was,  as  the  chronicle  relates,  "  casting  in 
his  mind  to  conquer  the  adjacent  island,  because  it  seemed  to  him 
to  be  commodious,  and  because  its  inhabitants  were  savage  and 
rude,"  he  was  applied  to  by  a  deposed  Irish  prince  to  reinstate 
him  on  the  throne.  The  invader  enjoyed  one  vast  advantage : 
England  had  been  successively  subjugated  by  the  Romans,  the 
Danes,  the  Saxons,  and  the  Normans,  and  in  that  rough  experi- 
ence she  had  acquired  the  consolidation  and  discipline  which, 


188  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

combined  with  the  energy  arising  from  a  mingling  of  races,  and 
an  ambition  springing  from  an  insular  position,  have  enabled  her 
almost  "  to  have  the  world  in  empire." 

The  invasion,  of  course,  did  not  result  in  restoring  the  Irish 
King,  nor  did  it  result  in  the  conquest  of  Ireland.  It  ended  in 
only  the  establishment  of  a  small  colony  upon  the  coast,  enclosed 
with  palisades,  and  therefore  called  "The  Pale."  Within  the 
"  Pale "  were  Englishmen,  English  lords,  English  manners,  Eng- 
lish customs,  and  English  rale  ;  and  without  the  "Pale"  were  the 
entire  nation  of  Irishmen,  with  their  hereditary  princes,  and  their 
native  language,  customs,  and  manners. 

Acting  upon  the  law  of  nations,  as  it  was  then  understood,  these 
races  regarded  each  other  as  natural  enemies ;  and  hence  ensued 
ware  unsparing  and  unrelenting.  The  Reformation  forced  a  new 
element  into  this  internecine  strife.  The  Catholic  Church  in  Eng- 
land had  given  place  to  one  which  suited  its  kings  and  people 
better.  Considerations  of  prudence,  co-operating  with  a  spirit  of 
proselytism,  determined  the  government  of  England  to  subvert 
the  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland.  The  sword  was  the  missal  sent, 
and  a  ferocious  soldiery  were  the  apostles  of  the  new  faith.  The 
Irish  preferred  their  paternal  religion  to  that  which  was  so  rudely 
recommended  to  them  by  their  enemies.  The  "  Pale,"  although 
backed  by  England,  was  too  feeble  to  subjugate  Ireland ;  and 
Ireland,  distracted  by  the  jealousies  of  her  clans,  was  too  weak  to 
crush  the  "  Pale ;"  and  so  for  four  hundred  years  continued  ware, 
at  the  end  of  which  both  parties  retained  their  relative  positions 
and  power.  And  thus  all  that  important  portion  of  the  nation's 
life  was  worse  than  lost,  in  consequence  of  an  imperfect  conquest. 
At  last,  five  hundred  and  twenty  years  after  the  first  invasion  by 
Henry,  and  at  the  close  of  the  great  battle  fought  on  the  banks 
of  the  Boyne,  Ireland  capitulated ;  and  at  that  time  the  entire 
twelve  millions  of  acres  of  tillable  land  were  divided  and  par- 
celled out  among  the  invaders  and  the  few  apostatizing  natives. 
Ireland  capitulated ;  and,  by  the  treaty  of  Limerick,  subjected 
herself  to  the  government  of  the  "  Pale."  But  she  reserved,  in 
the  most  solemn  manner,  the  liberty  of  conscience.  This  right— 
the  liberty  of  conscience — was  not  only  stipulated  by  the  treaty 
of  Limerick,  but  was  solemnly  guarantied  by  William  and  Mary, 
now  the  common  sovereigns  of  the  two  countries. 

England,  nevertheless,  persevered  in  her  policy  of  subverting 


THE  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  189 

the  Catholic  Church,  changing  only  the  means  employed  for  that 
purpose.  She  perfidiously  broke  the  covenants  of  peace,  though 
they  had  been  written  in  blood,  and  established  a  penal  code,  dis- 
franchising the  Catholic  Irish  people  of  all  civil,  political,  social, 
and  domestic  liberty,  as  well  as  of  their  ecclesiastical  rights,  and 
thus  substituted  for  invading  armies  the  sterner  despotism  of  the 
law,  and  withdrew  the  sword  to  replace  it  with  the  scaifold. 

Sir,  I  shall  not  detail  that  atrocious  code,  but  will  content  my- 
self by  giving  a  description  of  it,  drawn  by  Edmund  Burke, 
seventy  years  ago — a  description  which  time  has  now  proved 
prophetic  : 

"  It  is,"  says  he,  "  a  system  full  of  coherence  and  consistency,  well  digested  and  well 
disposed,  in  all  its  parts  fitted  for  the  impoverishment" — (yes,  sir,  these  are  the  words,) — 
"fitted  for  the  impoverishment  and  the  degradation  of  a  people,  and  for  debasing  in  them 
of  human  nature  itself" 

The  after  history  of  Ireland,  Mr.  President,  is  a  record  of  fre- 
quent and  generous,  but  unavailing  struggles,  by  or  in  behalf  of 
the  People,  to  cast  off  that  code,  and,  more  recently,  to  redeem 
the  country  from  its  desolating  effects.  In  the  year  1778,  Grattan, 
Burke,  and  Flood,  profiting  by  the  enthusiasm  awakened  through- 
out the  world  by  the  American  Revolution,  and  by  the  embarrass- 
ment of  the  British  government  in  consequence  of  it,  succeeded 
in  obtaining  from  the  British  Parliament  a  relaxation  of  the  rigors 
of  the  code  in  regard  to  education  and  the  rights  of  property ; 
and,  in  the  year  1782,  when  the  exigencies  of  the  British  govern- 
ment had  become  more  alarming,  they  succeeded  in  wresting  from 
the  British  King  and  Parliament  a  renunciation  of  legislative 
and  sovereign  power  over  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland ;  and  it  was 
expressed  in  these  solemn  and  memorable  words  : 

"  The  rights  claimed  by  the  people  of  Ireland,  to  be  bound  only  by  laws  enacted  by 
His  Majesty  and  the  Parliament  of  that  kingdom,  shall  be  and  are  established,  and,  at 
no  time  hereafter,  shall  be  questioned  or  questionable." 

Sir,  Ireland  exulted  for  a  delirious  moment  in  national  inde- 
pendence regained ;  but  it  was  only  for  a  moment,  and  that 
moment  was  delirious.  Ireland  required  the  repeal  of  the  penal 
code,  and  demanded  a  constitution.  The  Parliament  of  the 
"Pale,"  constituted  of  a  Protestant  representation  alone,  and, 
being  in  the  interest  of  England,  refused  both.  Discontent,  wide 
and  deep,  pervaded  the  Irish  people.  Emmett,  Fitzgerald,  and 
their  associates,  in  1798,  conspired  to  raise  the  standard  of  insur- 

YOL.  1—13. 


190  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

rection ;  but  they  were  betrayed,  and  the  rebellion  was  crushed  in 
the  germ. 

The  government  of  Great  Britain  now  assumed  that  the  people 
of  Ireland  had  tried,  fully  and  fairly  tried,  the  experiment,  and 
had  proved  themselves  incapable  of  exercising  the  franchise  of 
eelf-govemment.  The  British  Parliament,  therefore,  sent  down 
to  the  Parliament  of  the  Pale  what  was  called  an  act  of  Union, 
and  in  the  year  1800,  that  mockery  of  a  legislature  adopted  it, 
and  surrendered  its  own  perfidious  and  pernicious  existence.  By 
that  act  of  Union,  Ireland,  in  May,  1800,  was  in  name  united,  but 
was  in  fact  absorbed,  and  became  virtually  a  province  of  the 
British  Empire,  with  only  the  shadow  of  a  representation  of  the 
Protestant  minority  of  the  kingdom  in  the  British  Parliament. 
Daniel  O'Connell,  a  jurist  and  advocate  of  surpassing  genius,  elo- 
quence, and  learning,  inferring,  from  the  failure  of  the  men  of 
1798,  that  the  time  for  a  martial  revolution  had  passed  away,  at 
least  for  the  present,  conceived  the  bold  purpose  of  obtaining  a 
repeal  of  the  penal  code  and  the  restoration  of  his  country  to  a 
place  among  the  nations,  by  a  process  of  civil  agitation,  always 
within  the  restraints  of  the  law,  and  looking  for  the  effect  through 
the  action  of  the  King  and  Parliament  of  England.  In  the  year 
1829,  he  obtained  a  signal  triumph  in  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
Catholic  emancipation.  There  remained  but  one  step  between 
this  memorable  act  and  the  freedom  and  independence  of  Ireland. 
That  step  was  the  repeal  of  the  Act  of  Union.  But  the  ruin  and 
desolation  resulting  from  the  penal  code,  which  Burke  had  pre- 
dicted, pressed  too  hard  upon  the  march  of  the  Reformer.  Ireland 
could  not  wait  the  slow  progress  and  doubtful  success  of  civic 
agitation.  The  nation  divided  between  the  parties  of  "Old 
Ireland,"  following  the  lead  of  Daniel  O'Connell  and  his  peaceful 
standard,  and  of  "  Young  Ireland,"  under  the  revolutionary  ban- 
ner set  up  by  William  Smith  O'Brien.  Xow,  in  point  of  fact,  it 
is  possible  that  even  if  the  Irish  people  had  remained  united, 
neither  of  those  policies  would  have  been  successful ;  but  it  is 
also  certain,  that  when  the  nation  divided  and  broke,  both  efforts 
signally  failed.  Daniel  O'Connell  died  of  a  broken  heart  at 
Genoa,  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome,  and  William  Smith  O'Brien, 
the  leader  of  the  Irish  rebellion,  being  found  without  attendants, 
arms,  or  troops,  was  arrested,  convicted  of  high  treason,  and  sen- 


THE  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  191 

tenced  to  an  ignominious  death.     His  sentence,  being  commuted 
by  the  Crown,  he  is  now  an  exile  in  Yan  Dieman's  Land. 

Simultaneously  with  the  failure  of  these,  the  last  efforts  hitherto 
made  for  the  redemption  of  Ireland,  poverty  and  pestilence  stalked 
abroad  through  that  ill-fated  country,  exciting  the  sympathy  of 
nations,  and  moving  even  the  distant  people  and  Congress  of  the 
United  States  to  send  relief.  Depopulation  of  the  island  assumed 
a  frightful  momentum,  and,  from  that  time  to  this,  has  continued 
to  give  the  last  confirmation,  which  the  most  skeptical  could  have 
required,  of  the  conclusion,  that  never  on  earth  wras  a  revolution 
more  just  or  more  necessary,  than  that  attempted  by  William 
Smith  O'Brien  and  his  companions  in  exile. 

Sir,  it  is  not  my  object,  in  this  review,  to  excite  prejudices,  here  ] 
or  elsewhere,  against  England,  or  against  the  Protestant  Church  / 
within  that  kingdom.  I  have  no  such  prejudices  myself.  I  dis-' 
claim  and  disdain  partisanship  in  regard  to  historic  events.  O'Con- 
nell  was  a  Catholic ;  Smith  O'Brien  is  a  Protestant.  The  rage  of 
the  sects  has  died  away  in  the  agony  of  the  catastrophe  which 
has  involved  the  people  of  both  in  a  common  desolation ;  and 
wise  and  sagacious  men  in  England  look  on  the  decay  of  Ireland 
as  an  alarming  presage  of  the  decline  of  the  empire.  But,  sir,  on 
an  occasion  like  this,  Ireland  is  entitled  to,  and  from  me  she  has 
received,  her  vindication.  The  policy  of  England  was  the  policy 
of  the  age,  and  of  the  times,  and  of  systems  ;  and  this  is  her  suf- 
ficient apology. 

The  sympathy  of  the  American  people,  then,  in  behalf  of  Ire- 
land, is  just. 

I  proceed  to  remark,  that  this  sympathy  derives  intenseness 
from  the  conceded  genius  and  proverbial  virtues  of  the  Irish 
people.  The  plains  of  Waterloo,  and  the  heights  of  Abraham, 
attest  that  they  are  brave  as  well  as  sagacious  in  war.  Like  the 
Greeks,  in  their  decline,  they  have  enchanted  the  world  with  their 
wit  and  song  and  eloquence.  They  are  confessedly  confiding  and 
generous  to  a  fault,  while  their  whole  history  and  traditions,  reach- 
ing now  a  period  of  a  thousand  years,  exhibit  not  one  instance  of 
unlawful  aggression.  Is  not,  then,  the  tribute  proposed  by  this 
resolution  due  to  such  a  people  ?  And  if  so,  why  shall  it  not  be 
offered  ? 

I  am  answered,  that  this  is  a  question  for  the  British  Govern- 
ment, and  that  it  is  they,  and  not  we,  who  are  to  extend  clemency 


192  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

or  pardon  to  the  Irish  exiles.  I  grant  it,  fully  grant  it.  But  men 
and  nations  are  moved  by  persuasion.  AVhat  is  asked  here,  is  not 
an  exercise  of  clemency,  but  only  a  word  of  persuasion  to  be  whis- 
pered to  the  power  that  can  grant  it. 

I  am  told  that  we  may  lawfully  sympathize,  as  individuals,  in 
the  misfortunes  of  these  unhappy  men,  and  of  their  more  un- 
happy country ;  but  that  to  this  country  as  a  political  body — a 
state  or  nation — or  to  us  as  the  representatives — the  government 
of  a  nation — such  sympathy  is  forbidden.  This  seems  to  me 
equivalent  to  saying  that  we  may  indulge  sentiments  of  generous 
compassion,  but  we  shall  never  carry  them  into  beneficent  action. 
The  sympathy  of  the  several  members  of  this  Senate,  or  of  this 
Congress,  or  of  the  individual  citizens  of  the  United  States,  will 
be  unavailing.  If  that  sympathy  is  truly  felt  by  the  nation,  it  can 
only  be  effectually  expressed  in  the  manner  in  which  national 
sympathies,  and  determinations  of  the  national  will,  are  always 
made  effective — by  the  action  of  the  government.  And,  sir,  let 
me  say,  that  there  is  only  one  code  of  morals  for  mankind,  and  its 
obligations  bind  them  equally,  whether  they  be  individuals,  sub- 
jects, citizens,  states,  or  nations. 

I  shall  be  told,  that  we  may  not  intervene  in  this,  which  is  a 
domestic  affair  of  a  foreign  government.  It  is  time  that  we  may 
not  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  any  government  for  unjust  purposes, 
nor  can  we  intervene  by  force  for  even  just  purposes.  But  this 
is  the  only  restraint  imposed  on  us  by  the  law  of  nations.  That 
law,  while  it  declares  that  every  government  has  the  absolute 
right  to  deal  with  its  own  citizens,  according  to  its  own  laws,  inde- 
pendently of  any  other,  affords  a  large  verge  and  scope  for  the 
exercise  of  offices  of  courtesy,  kindness,  benevolence,  and  charity. 
It  is  Montesquieu  who  says  that  "  the  law  of  nations  is  founded 
upon  the  principle,  that  every  nation  is  bound  in  time  of  peace  to 
do  to  every  other  nation  all  the  good  it  possibly  can,  and  in  time 
of  war,  the  least  evil  it  possibly  can  consistently  with  its  own  real 
interests."  It  is  upon  this  humane  principle  that  diplomatic  inter- 
course is  maintained  among  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  all 
of  whom  are,  by  the  law  of  nations,  regarded  as  constituting  one 
great  commonwealth. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  it  will  be  said  that  if  we  adopt  this  reso- 
lution, it  will,  however  harmless  it  be  in  itself,  furnish  a  precedent 
for  mischievous  intervention,  either  by  ourselves  in  the  affairs  of 


THE  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  193 

other  states,  or  by  other  states  in  our  affairs  hereafter.  To  admit 
this  argument  is  to  admit  distrust  of  ourselves.  We  certainly  do 
not  distrust  our  own  sense  of  justice.  "We  do  not  distrust  our  own 
wisdom.  So  long  as  we  remain  here,  then,  we  shall  be  able  to 
guard  against  any  such  abuse  of  this  precedent.  Let  us  also  be 
generous  instead  of  egotistical,  and  let  us  believe  that  neither 
wisdom  nor  justice  will  die  with  those  who  occupy  these  places 
now,  but  that  our  successors  will  be  as  just  and  as  wise  as  we  are. 
So  far  as  the  objection  anticipates  an  abuse  of  this  precedent  by 
foreign  states,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  if  a  foreign  state  shall  ask 
of  us  just  what  we  now  propose,  and  no  more,  we  shall  have  nc 
difficulty  and  no  ground  of  complaint.  If  it  shall  ask  more,  we 
shall  be  free  to  reject  what  shall  then  be  asked,  as  the  British 
Government  is  free  to  reject  our  application. 

Sir,  this  proposition  involves  a  view  of  the  relations  of  the  par- 
ties concerned.  The  people  of  Ireland  are  affiliated  to  us,  as  we 
are  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain.  Surely  there  can  be  no  offence 
given  by  a  younger  member  in  offering  mediation  between  the 
elder  brethren  of  the  same  family  upon  a  point  of  difference  be- 
tween them. 

But  what  if  Great  Britain  should  take  offence  at  this  suggestion  ? 
What  then  ?  Why,  then  England  wrould  be  in  the  wrong,  and  we 
in  the  right.  The  time  has  passed  when  this  country  can  be 
alarmed,  by  fear  of  war  in  such  a  case.  No  one  will  confess  that 
he  indulges  any  such  apprehension.  Sir,  Great  Britain  will  not 
take  offence.  She  knows  that  her  greatness  and  her  fame  are  well 
assured.  She  has  no  motive  whatever  to  affect  M'ounded  sensi- 
bility. She  will  receive  this  suggestion  in  the  same  fraternal 
spirit  in  which  it  is  made.  Nor  will  she  refuse  the  boon.  She 
knows  as  well  as  we  do,  that  rigor  protracted  beyond  the  necessity 
of  security  to  the  state,  reacts.  She  knows  full  well,  that  for  the 
present,  at  least,  sedition  sleeps  profoundly  in  Ireland,  and  that 
the  granting  of  this  appeal  will  protract  its  slumbers.  Great 
Britain  will  be  thankful  to  us  for  our  confidence  in  her  generosity, 
for  her  motto  is,  "  Parcere  subjectis  et  debellare  stt-pcrbos." 

While  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  certain  that  we  may,  with  pro- 
priety and  success,  make  this  appeal  to  Great  Britain,  the  circum- 
stances in  which  we  stand,  in  regard  to  Ireland,  render  the  duty 
of  making  it  imperative.  But  for  the  instructions  and  example 
of  the  United  States,  Ireland  would  never  have  attempted  revolu- 


194  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

tion  in  1798,  nor  would  "William  Smith  O'Brien  now  have  been 
an  exile ;  for  if  it  had  not  been  for  those  instructions  and  that 
example,  Ireland  would  long  ago  have  sunk  into  the  slumber  of 
bondage  that  knows  no  waking.  Again,  sir ;  the  failure  of  Smith 
O'Brien  and  his  associates  resulted  from  the  exhaustion  of  Ireland. 
That  exhaustion  has  contributed  largely  to  the  elements  of  our 
wealth,  strength,  and  power.  If  we  had  not  withdrawn  the  political 
and  physical  means  of  self-defence  and  of  resistance  from  Ireland 
during  the  last  sixty  years,  she  would  now  have  been  able  to 
maintain  a  successful  rebellion.  When  O'Connell  gathered  the 
populace  upon  the  hill  of  Clare,  he  found  that  Ireland  was  deserted 
by  the  vigorous,  the  young,  and  the  strong,  and  that  he  was  sur- 
rounded by  the  aged,  the  poor,  and  the  spiritless.  It  is  these 
reflections  upon  the  propriety  of  the  act  itself,  and  upon  the  rela- 
tions in  which  we  stand  toward  the  parties  to  it,  that  persuade 
my  vote  in  favor  of  this  resolution. 

I  have  suggested  to  the  consideration  of  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Illinois,  [Mr.  SHIELDS,]  some  verbal  amendments  which 
seem  to  me  calculated  to  improve  and  perfect  the  resolution,  in 
accordance  with  the  wish  he  himself  expressed.  Their  design  is 
to  guard  more  safely  the  dignity  of  Congress  and  of  the  United 
States.  If  rightly  conceived,  they  will  have  that  effect.  But  1 
am  not  tenacious  of  them.  I  shall  not  press  them  against  the 
wishes  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  If  they  shall  be  adopted, 
the  resolution  will  have  my  vote.  If  they  shall  not  be  adopted,  it 
will  have  my  vote.  The  resolution  as  originally  introduced  would 
have  received  my  support.  Equally  shall  it  have  my  support  in 
the  modified  form  it  has  assumed,  through  deference  to  the  wishes 
of  other  senators. 

And  now,  sir,  when  this  resolution  in  any  shape  shall  have 
been  passed,  there  can  be  but  one  wish  of  mine  in  regard  to  the 
subject,  that  Congress  will  have  power  to  gratify  :  That  wish  will 
be,  that  he  who  is  now  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  the  mover  of 
the  resolution,  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois,  [Mr.  SHIELDS,] 
should  be  made  the  bearer  of  this  appeal  to  the  "  Soveraine 
Queene,"  in  whose  will  and  pleasure  the  granting  of  it  will  rest. 
It  is  the  remembrance  of  a  scene  in  one  of  the  oldest  and  best  of 
English  poems  which  suggests  the  wish.  It  would  be  a  goodly 
and  a  gracious  sight  to  see  that  honorable  senator  returning  to  his 


THE  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  195 

native  land,  after  his  chivalrous  and  yet  modest  sojourn  here,  the 
bearer  of  a  proclamation  of  amnesty  from  the  sovereign  of  his 
native  country  thus  obtained.  And  I  should  rejoice  to  see  the 
greeting  of  him  by  his  countrymen, 

"  Shouting  and  clapping  all  their  hands  on  hight, 
That  all  the  ayre  it  fils  and  flyes  to  Heayene  bright" 


196  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


FKEEDOM    IN    EUKOPE. 

MARCH  9,  1852. 

THE  question  was  on  the  following  resolutions,  submitted  by  Mr.  SEWARD,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  resolutions  introduced  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  CLARKE,  of  Rhode  Island  : 

Resolved,  That  while  the  United  States,  in  consideration  of  the  exigencies  of  society, 
habitually  recognize  goA'ernments  de  facto  in  other  states,  yet  that  they  are  nevertheless 
by  no  means  indifferent  when  such  a  government  is  established  against  the  consent  of 
anv  people  by  usurpation  or  by  armed  intervention  of  foreign  states  or  nations. 

Resolve^,  That,  considering  that  the  people  of  Hungary,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right 
secured  to  them  by  the  laws  of  nations,  in  a  solemn  and  legitimate  manner  asserted 
their  national  independence,  and  established  a  government  by  their  own  voluntary  act, 
and  successfully  maintained  it  against  all  opposition  by  parties  lawfully  interested  in  the 
question  ;  and  that  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  without  just  or  lawful  right,  invaded  Hun- 
gary, and,  by  fraud  and  armed  force,  subverted  the  national  independence  and  political 
constitution  thus  established,  and  thereby  reduced  that  country  to  the  condition  of  a 
province  ruled  by  a  foreign  power ;  the  United  States,  in  defence  of  their  own  interests, 
and  of  the  common  interests  of  mankind,  do  solemnly  protest  against  the  conduct  of 
Russia  on  that  occasion,  as  a  wanton  and  tyrannical  infraction  of  the  laws  of  nations  ; 
and  the  United  States  do  further  declare  that  they  will  not  hereafter  be  indifferent  to 
similar  acts  of  national  injustice,  oppression,  and  usurpation,  whenever  or  wherever  they 
may  occur. 

MB.  PRESIDENT, — Writers  on  law  teach  us  that  states  are  free, 
independent,  equal,  moral  persons,  existing  for  the  objects  of 
happiness  and  usefulness,  and  possessing  rights  and  subject  to 
duties  denned  by  the  law  of  nature,  which  is  a  system  of  politics 
and  morals  founded  in  right  reason ;  that  the  only  difference  be- 
tween politics  and  morals  is,  that  one  regulates  the  operations  of 
government,  while  the  other  directs  the  conduct  of  individuals, 
and  that  the  maxims  of  both  are  the  same ;  that  two  sovereign 
states  may  be  subject  to  one  prince,  and  yet  be  mutually  inde- 
pendent ;  that  a  nation  becomes  free  by  the  act  of  its  ruler  when 
he  exceeds  the  fundamental  laws  ;  that  when  any  power,  whether 
domestic  or  foreign,  attempts  to  deprive  a  state  of  independence 
or  of  liberty,  it  may  lawfully  take  counsel  of  its  courage,  and 
prefer  before  the  certainty  of  servitude  the  chances  of  destruction ; 


FREEDOM  IN  EUROPE.  197 

*.hat  each  nation  is  bound  to  do  to  every  other  in  time  of  peace 
the  most  good,  and  in  time  of  war,  the  least  harm  possible,  con- 
sistently with  its  own  real  interests  ;  that  while  this  is  an  imper- 
fect obligation,  of  which  no  state  can  exact  a  performance,  any 
one  has  nevertheless  a  right  to  use  peaceful  means,  and  even  force, 
if  necessary,  to  repress  a  power  that  openly  violates  the  law  of 
nations,  and  directly  attacks  their  common  welfare ;  and  that, 
although  the  interests  of  universal  society  require  mutual  inter- 
course between  states,  yet  that  intercourse  can  be  conducted  by 
those  only  who  in  their  respective  nations  possess  and  exercise  in 
fact  adequate  political  powers. 

Austria,  being  situated  in  Central  Europe,  with  only  an  incon- 
siderable sea-port,  we  have  known  little  of  her,  except  that  she 
was  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  energetic  and  inexorable  members 
of  that  combination  of  states  which,  under  the  changing  names 
of  "  The  Allied  Powers,"  "  The  Holy  League,"  and  "  The  Holy 
Alliance,"  and  with  the  unchanging  pretence  of  devotion  to  order 
and  religion,  have  more  than  half  a  century  opposed  and  resisted 
everywhere  the  reforming  and  benign  principles  of  the  American 
Revolution. 

Hungary,  after  having  been  in  ages  past  the  heroic  defender  of 
Christian  Europe  against  the  armies  of  Islam,  and  later  the 
chivalrous  guardian  of  Austria  from  the  usurpations  of  Prussia 
and  France,  seemed  near  a  century  ago  to  disappear,  and  only 
four  years  since  came  again  on  the  stage,  and  challenged  her  part 
in  the  drama  of  nations.  She  occupied  a  region  within  the  Aus- 
trian Empire  with  fifteen  millions  of  people,  of  whom  the  Magyars, 
a  race  that  had  inherited  freedom,  arts,  and  arms,  were  one-third, 
while  the  remainder  were  Germans,  Serbs,  and  "Wallachians,  and 
the  two  latter  classes  were  debased  and  virtually  enslaved  by  feu- 
dal customs  and  laws.  Under  the  constitution,  given  to  her  by 
an  ancient  king,  St.  Stephen,  Hungary  was  a  limited  monarchy 
and  an  absolutely  independent  state.  Beginning,  however,  in 
1530,  she  elected  for  her  kings  the  successive  reigning  dukes  of 
the  house  of  Hapsburg  Loraine  for  a  period  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  and  then  gave  them  succession  to  her  throne  by  a  law 
of  inheritance.  Nevertheless,  fundamental  laws  enacted  by  Hun- 
gary, and  accepted  by  the  Austrian  dynasty,  defined  the  union  of 
the  two  states,  declaring  that  the  king  should  have  no  power  be- 
fore coronation,  that  he  could  be  crowned  only  on  signing  a  com- 


198  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

pact  and  swearing  an  oath  to  sustain  the  constitution,  usages,  and 
laws  of  Hungary,  by  virtue  of  which  she  was  a  free  and  inde- 
pendent state,  and  that  she  could  be  bound  by  no  royal  edicts  or 
decrees,  but  only  by  laws  passed  by  her  own  diet  or  legislature, 
and  sanctioned  by  her  king. 

Hungary  was  always  as  independent  of  Russia  as  we  are. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  was  the  condition  of  Hungaiy  in  March, 
1848.  Now  she  has  neither  constitution,  nor  king,  nor  diet,  nor 
national  functions,  nor  national  organs,  nor  independence,  nor 
liberty,  nor  law,  but  lies  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  the  Austrian  Em- 
peror, and  receives  his  absolute  decrees  from  the  point  of  the 
sword.  Who  has  wrought  this  melancholy  and  fearful  change  in 
a  countiy  that  had  used  its  liberty  so  nobly,  and  had  kept  it  so 
long  ?  We  shall  soon  see. 

In  February,  1848,  the  Hungarian  Diet,  while  revising  and  me- 
liorating their  domestic  laws,  learned  by  the  telegraphic  wires  that 
a  republic  had  risen  in  Paris,  and  that  a  constitutional  govern- 
ment was  about  to  rise  in  Yienna.  Availing  themselves  of  these 
propitious  circumstances,  they  decreed  the  establishment  of  an 
independent  national  treasury,  a  resident  palatine  or  viceroy,  and 
a  responsible  Hungarian  ministry — institutions  equally  necessary, 
just,  and  constitutional.  Hungary  received  the  royal  sanction  of 
these  measures  with  contentment  and  satisfaction  at  the  very  mo- 
ment when  only  her  word  was  wanting  to  subvert  the  empire. 
Three  days  afterward,  the  Germans  obtained  a  constitution  at 
the  hands  of  the  emperor,  who  thus  became  a  limited  monarch 
in  his  Austrian  dominions,  as  he  had  always  been  in  Hungary. 
The  Hungarian  Diet  at  once  reformed  the  social  and  political 
condition  of  the  state,  and,  abolishing  feudalism,  but  not  with- 
out just  compensation,  they  established  equality  of  taxation, 
representation,  suffrage,  and  all  legal  rights  among  all  races  and 
classes  throughout  the  kingdom ;  and  on  the  llth  of  April,  the 
emperor  crowned  this  noble  and  beneficent  work  by  an  edict  ap- 
proving and  confirming  the  new  laws,  "  word  for  word." 

A  party  of  reaction,  not  Hungarian,  but  Austrian,  on  ground- 
less pretences,  fomented  insurrection  in  the  Hungarian  provinces 
of  Servia  and  Wallachia  ;  and  inasmuch  as  tyranny,  when  panic 
struck,  cannot  but  be  perfidious,  the  emperor,  violating  the  con- 
stitution and  laws,  appointed  the  chief  instigator,  the  Baron  Jella- 
chich,  to  the  office  of  ban  or  governor  of  the  seditious  districts. 


HUNGARY.  199 

Hungary  remonstrated,  and  the  emperor  disavowed  the  insurrec- 
tion, denounced  and  deposed  the  ban,  and  called  on  the  Diet  to 
provide  by  law  promptly  and  effectually  for  the  safety  of  the  king- 
dom. Nevertheless,  the  traitor,  privately  assured  by  the  monarch, 
entered  the  territory  of  the  Magyars  with  forty  thousand  men, 
and,  receiving  there  six  auxiliary  Imperial  regiments,  proceeded 
toward  the  Hungarian  capital,  marking  his  way  with  inhumanity 
shocking  to  describe — burying  living  men,  and  slaying  women 
without  mercy,  and  even  children  without  remorse.  In  the  midst 
of  these  terrors,  the  emperor,  the  crowned  and  constitutional  King 
of  Hungary,  rejected  the  defensive  laws  which  at  his  own  instance 
the  diet  had  passed,  restored  to  the  invading  chief  his  dignities, 
and,  suspending  the  fundamental  laws,  proclaimed  him  now  not 
merely  ban  of  the  insurgent  provinces,  but  supreme  dictator  of 
all  Hungary.  Then  rang  throughout  that  land  a  well-known  voice 
—a  voice  that  a  tyrant  once  had  stifled  for  three  years  in  an  Aus- 
trian dungeon,  and  that  in  its  turn  had  made  that  tyrant  take 
refuge  in  the  subterranean  vaults  of  Schoenbrunn,  and  in  the 
mountain  fastnesses  of  the  Tyrol — a  voice  that  has  since  been 
heard  by  all  nations.  In  tones  sad  yet  bold,  and  in  language 
solemn  yet  cheering  and  prophetic,  it  predicted  that  this  treason 
of  the  king  would  work  out  the  independence  of  the  Magyar 
state,  and  closed  with  the  appeal,  "  To  arms !  to  arms !  every 
man  to  arms !  And  let  the  women  dig  a  deep  grave  between 
Veszprem  and  Fehervar,  in  which  to  bury  either  the  name,  fame, 
and  nationality  of  Hungary,  or  our  enemy  !"  The  sons  of  Atila 
rose  as  one  man,  the  Diet  took  its  firm  resolve,  the  ministry  exe- 
cuted it,  and  the  nation  organized  almost  in  a  day,  and  appointed 
and  supplied  as  soon,  by  the  genius  which  had  summoned  it  to 
the  field,  met,  defeated,  and  chased  the  invader  to  the  very  walls 
of  Vienna,  and  there  sat  down  and  waited,  unhappily  in  vain,  the 
concerted  rising  of  the  German  republicans  for  the  overthrow  of 
the  empire.  The  constitutional  assembly  of  Austria,  although 
cheered  by  popular  victories,  vacillated,  and  then  of  course 
cowered,  and  at  last,  amid  the  decimation  of  the  patriots,  aban- 
doned the  easy  revolution.  Hungary  was  thus  left  alone.  Her 
constitutional  compact  and  oath  embarrassed  the  emperor.  He 
therefore  resigned,  and  his  son,  a  youth  of  seventeen,  sprang  into 
the  throne,  spurning  the  hateful  ceremonies  of  a  Himgarian  coro- 
nation, and  trampling  the  Constitution  of  St.  Stephen  into  the 


200  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

earth.  Nine  armies  at  once  entered  Hungary  on  various  sides, 
charged  to  complete  its  subjugation  by  concentrating  on  the 
banks  of  the  Theiss.  Not  one  of  them  reached  that  beautiful 
river.  All  were  assaulted,  routed  and  repulsed  ;  and  on  the  nine- 
teenth day  of  April,  1849,  only  one  year  after  the  nation  had  be- 
come free  by  the  act  of  her  prince,  the  Diet  deposed  and  banished 
tlie  House  of  Hapsburg,  pronounced  the  connection  between  Hun- 
gary and  Austria  at  an  end,  and  declared  Hungary  an  independent 
state,  and  committed  its  government  under  due  responsibilities  to 
its  deliverer,  Louis  Kossuth,  as  Governor  and  President.  Three 
days  afterward  the  last  of  the  invading  armies  withdrew,  and 
thus  the  war  ceased,  and  Hungary  was  then  in  fact  and  by  suc- 
cess of  arms,  as  well  as  in  law  and  by  the  voice  of  justice,  inde- 
pendent and  free.  Nine  months  later,  that  independence  was 
overthrown  by  two  hundred  thousand  Russian  troops,  with  one 
hundred  and  forty  thousand  Austrian  auxiliaries,  at  the  command 
of  the  czar,  on  no  better  pretext  than  this :  that  the  successful 
example  of  Hungary  was  dangerous  to  order  and  religion  in 
Europe.  But  this  was  nothing  less  (in  the  words  of  Grotius)  than 
"  a  deprivation  "  of  Hungary  of  "  what  belonged  to  her,"  by  Rus- 
sia, "for  her  own  advantage;"  and  such  acts  have  been  univer- 
sally condemned  as  criminal  by  all  writers  on  the  Law  of  Nations 
from  the  dawn  of  that  science  until  its  present  noon.  When,  in 
this  fresh  and  accumulated  invasion  and  intervention,  the  national 
armies,  not  without  extraordinary  and  cheering  successes,  were  at 
last  hemmed  in  and  around  the  national  fortresses,  and  there  re- 
mained only  a  hope  that  terms  of  capitulation  might  be  obtained, 
Gorgey,  the  victorious  and  popular  military  chief,  became  con- 
tumacious toward  the  civil  authorities.  He  was  deposed,  but  was 
restored  as  an  indispensable  alternative  ;  and  then,  holding  in  his 
own  hands  the  only  available  means  of  effective  resistance,  he 
exacted  an  absolute  dictatorship  as  a  condition  of  using  them. 
Invested  with  supreme  power,  he  used  it  to  complete  a  surrender 
of  the  country  in  pursuance  of  previous  concert  with  the  enemy, 
without  conditions,  except  in  one  instance,  and  without  striking  a 
blow.  The  civil  leader,  with  a  small  but  heroic  band,  escaped 
into  Turkey ;  and  now,  after  undergoing  long  surveillance  there, 
restored  to  freedom  and  activity,  he  is  amongst  us,  with  a  soul 
unsubdued  by  treachery,  misfortune,  poverty,  reproach,  and  exile, 
preparing  a  new  revolution  for  his  fatherland,  which,  as  soon  as 


INTERVENTION.  201 

it  was  surrendered  to  the  czar,  was  by  him  delivered  over  to  the 
emperor,  and  at  once  submerged  in  the  Austrian  Empire. 

Sir,  on  the  grounds  of  these  principles  and  these  facts,  I  submit 
to  the  Senate  and  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  that  certain 
propositions  implied  in  the  protest  offered  by  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor from  Michigan,  [Mr.  CASS,]  and  fully  and  distinctly  expressed 
in  that  presented  by  myself,  are  established,  namely  : 

1.  That  the  people  of  Hungary,  in  the  exercise  of  rights  secured  to  them  by  the  Law 
of  Nations,  in  a  solemn  and  legitimate  manner  asserted  their  national  independence, 
and  established  a  government  by  their  own  voluntary  act,  and  successfully  maintained 
it  against  all  parties  lawfully  interested  in  the  question. 

2.  That  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  without  just  or  lawful  right,  invaded  Hungary,  and  by 
fraud  and  armed  force  subverted  the  national  independence  and  political  constitution 
thus  established,  and  thereby  reduced  that  country  to  the  condition  of  a  province  ruled 
by  a  foreign  and  absolute  power. 

3.  That  although  the  United  States,  from  the  necessities  of  political  society,  recognize 
the  existing  rule  in  Hungary,  yet  they  are  not  indifferent  to  the  usurpation  and  conquest 
by  which  it  was  established. 

4.  That  they  may  lawfully  protest  against  that  conquest  and  usurpation,  and  against 
any  new  armed  intervention  by  Russia  to  uphold  it  against  the  will  of  the  people  of 
Hungary,  if  it  shall  be  expressed. 

Sir,  this  being  the  whole  of  our  case,  and  it  being  thus  estab- 
lished, I  ask  why  shall  we  not  proclaim  that  just  and  lawful  pro- 
test ? 

An  honorable  Senator  [Mr.  MILLER]  answers  that  we  shall  not 
speak  because  "  the  matter  is  foreign."  But  how  is  it  foreign  ? 
Does  it  not  arise  in  the  family  of  nations,  and  are  we  not  a  member 
of  that  family,  and  interested  in  its  welfare,  and  therefore  in  the  laws 
by  which  that  wrelfare  is  secured  ?  There  was  a  senate  two  thou- 
sand years  ago,  in  which  that  objection  provoked  a  rebuke  from 
one  who  never  indulged  a  thought  of  the  republic  that  was  not 
divine.  "  Hceo  lex  socialis  est"  said  Cicero,  "  hoc  jus  nationum 
exterarum  est :  Hanc  habent  arcem,  minus  aliquanto  nuno  quidem- 
munitam  quam  antea  /  verumtamen,  si  qua  reliqua  spes  est,  quce 
sociorum  animos  consolari  possit,  ca  tota  in  hac  lege  posita  est  • 
cujus  legis  non  modo  a  Populo  Romano,  sed  etiam  ab  ultimis  na- 
tionibus  jampridem  severi  custodes  requiruntur" 

Another  Senator  [Mr.  CLEMENS]  tells  us  that  interest  is  the  first 
law  of  nations,  and  that  an  enlightened  sense  of  interest  offers  no 
argument  for  such  a  course.  Sir,  granting  the  extraordinary  rule 
thus  assumed,  the  value  of  the  objection  depends  on  what  consti- 


202 

tutes  an  interest.  While  it  is  true  that  this  proceeding  will  not 
be  directly  compensated  by  either  treasure  or  territory,  it  is  equally 
clear  that  we  need  neither,  and  that  the  promise  of  both  would 
constitute  no  adequate  motive.  The  commerce  of  Hungary  is, 
however,  an  interest  to  be  secured  by  us ;  and  inconsiderable  as  it 
must  be  under  a  despotism,  it  would  expand  under  a  republic. 
But  as  it  is  written  for  individual  guidance,  "  Man  shall  not  live 
by  bread  alone,"  so  is  it  true  of  nations,  that  riches  and  aggran- 
dizement are  only  means  and  not  objects  of  government,  and  that 
states  live  and  nourish  not  on  merely  physical  elements,  but  just 
in  the  proportion  that  law,  order,  peace,  justice,  and  liberty,  are 
maintained  in  the  commonwealth  of  nations.  What  expenses  do 
we  not  incur,  what  armaments  do  we  not  sustain,  to  protect  our 
national  rights  against  apprehended  injustice  !  How  much  more 
must  we  not  expend,  what  greater  armaments  must  we  not  pro- 
vide, if  we  by  silence  or  pusillanimity  encourage  attacks  on  the 
common  welfare  of  nations  ?  It  was  such  an  objection  that  the 
honorable  and  distinguished  Senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CLAY] 
reproved  on  an  occasion  like  this  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
twenty  years  ago,  when  he  said  :  "  I  see,  and  I  own  it  with  infi- 
nite regret,  a  tone  and  a  feeling  in  the  councils  of  the  country  in- 
finitely below  that  which  belongs  to  the  country."  Sir,  it  is 
enough  for  us  if  there  be  a  duty,  for  the  great  Lawgiver  has  never 
subjected  either  individuals  or  societies  to  an  obligation,  without 
attaching  to  the  law  a  penalty  for  its  neglect,  and  a  reward  for 
its  fulfilment. 

It  has  already  appeared  that  there  is  a  duty  resting  upon  us, 
unless,  indeed,  the  act  proposed  would  involve  an  injury  to  some 
real  interest  of  our  own.  The  question,  then,  is  not,  what  shall 
we  gain,  but  what  shall  we  lose,  by  the  protest  ?  In  reply  to  this 
inquiry,  the  Senate  Chamber  and  the  country  resound  with  alarms 
of  war,  and  we  are  frightened  with  estimates  of  the  boundless 
cost  of  the  controversy,  and  with  pictures  of  its  calamities,  fearful 
indeed  if  we  are  to  be  overborne,  and  still  more  terrible  if  we 
shall  come  off  conquerors.  Sir,  I  need  no  warnings  of  that  kind. 
War  is  so  incongruous  with  the  dictates  of  reason,  so  ferocious,  so 
hazardous,  and  so  demoralizing,  that  I  will  always  counsel  a  trial 
of  every  other  lawful  and  honorable  remedy  for  injustice,  before  a 
resort  to  that  extreme  measure  of  redress ;  and,  indeed,  I  shall 
never  counsel  it  except  on  the  ground  of  necessary  defence. 


INTERVENTION.  203 

But  if  war  is  to  follow  this  protest,  then  it  must  come  in  some 
way,  and  by  the  act  of  either  ourselves  or  our  enemy.  But  the 
protest  is  not  a  declaration,  nor  a  menace,  nor  even  a  pledge  of 
war  in  any  contingency.  War,  then,  will  not  come  in  that  way, 
nor  by  or  in  consequence  of  eur  act.  If  war  is  nevertheless  to 
come,  it  must  come  in  retaliation  of  the  protest,  and  by  the  act  of 
Russia,  or  of  Austria,  or  of  both.  Assume  now  that  it  shall  so 
come,  will  it  be  just  ?  The  protest  is  a  remonstrance  addressed 
to  the  conscience  of  Russia,  and,  passing  beyond  her,  carries  an 
appeal  to  the  reason  and  justice  of  mankind.  As  by  the  Munici- 
pal Law  no  remonstrance  or  complaint  justifies  a  blow,  so  by  the 
Law  of  Nations  no  remonstrance  or  complaint  justifies  a  war. 
The  war  then  would  be  unjust,  and  so  the  protest  would  be  not  a 
eanse,  but  a  pretext.  But  a  nation  that  will  declare  Avar  on  a  pre- 
text, will  either  fabricate  one  or  declare  war  without  any.  Let 
no  one  say  that  I  misstate  the  character  of  this  measure.  It  is 
neither  untried  nor  new.  Austria  protested  against  the  mission 
of  Dudley  Mann,  and  President  Taylor's  avowal  of  it.  Did  we 
go  to  war  ?  Did  anybody  think  that  we  ought  or  could  go  to  war 
for  that  ?  No  !  we  made  a  counter  protest  by  the  celebrated  let- 
ter of  the  Secretary  of  State,  [Mr.  WEBSTEK.]  Did  Austria  main- 
tain her  protest  by  a  declaration  of  war  ?  No  ;  we  are  at  peace 
with  Austria  yet,  and  I  hope  we  shall  be  so  forever.  And  now, 
honorable  senators,  I  ask,  if  we  are  to  shrink  from  this  duty  through 
fear  of  unjust  retaliation,  what  duty  shall  we  not  shrink  from  un- 
der the  same  motive  ?  And  what  will  be  the  principle  of  our 
policy,  when  thus  shrinking  from  obligations,  but  fear  instead  of 
duty? 

And  who  are  we,  and  who  are  Austria  and  Russia,  that  we  should 
fear  them  when  on  the  defence  against  an  unjust  war  ?  I  admit, 
and  I  hope  all  my  countrymen  will  learn  it  without  a  trial,  that 
we  are  not  constituted  for  maintaining  long,  distant  wars  of  con- 
quest or  of  aggression.  But  in  a  defensive  war  levied  against  us 
on  such  a  pretext,  the  reason  and  the  sympathies  of  mankind 
would  be  on  our  side,  co-operating  with  our  own  instincts  of  patri- 
otism and  self-preservation.  Our  enemies  would  be  powerless  to 
harm  us,  and  we  should  be  unconquerable. 

Why,  then,  I  ask,  shall  we  refrain  from  the  protest  ?  The  an- 
swer comes  up  on  all  sides.  "  Since,  then,  the  measure  is  pacific, 
Russia  will  disregard  it,  and  so  it  will  be  useless."  Well,  what  if 


204:  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

it  should  ?  It  will  at  least  be  harmless.  But  Russia  will  not  dis- 
regard it.  It  is  true  that  we  once  interpleaded  between  the  bel- 
ligerents of  Europe  twenty-five  years  by  protests  and  remon- 
strances in  defence  of  our  neutral  rights,  and  vindicated  them  at 
last  by  resistance  against  one  party,  and  open,  direct  war  against 
the  other.  But  all  that  is  changed  now.  Our  flag  was  then  a 
stranger  on  the  seas,  our  principles  were  then  unknown.  Now, 
both  are  regarded  with  respect  and  affection  by  the  people  of  Eu- 
rope. And  that  people,  too,  are  changed.  They  are  no  longer 
debased  and  hopeless  of  freedom,  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  wait- 
ing impatiently  for  it,  and  ready  to  second  our  expressions  of  in- 
terest in  their  cause.  The  British  nation  is  not  insensible  to  our 
emulation.  If  we  only  speak  out,  do  you  think  that  they  will 
be  silent?  No,  sir.  And  when  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  should  once  speak,  the  ever-fraternizing  bayonets  of  the 
army  of  France,  if  there  should  be  need,  would  open  a  passage 
for  the  voice  of  that  impulsive  and  generous  nation.  "Who  be- 
lieves that  Russia,  despotic  as  she  is,  would  brave  the  remon- 
strances of  these  three  great  powers,  sustained  as  they  would  be 
by  the  voice  of  Christendom  ?  Sir,  I  do  not  know  that  this  pro- 
test will  do  Hungary  or  European  Democracy  any  good.  It  is 
enough  for  me  that,  like  our  first  of  orators  [Mr.  WEBSTER]  in  a 
similar  case,  I  can  say,  "  I  hope  it  may." 

But  it  is  replied  that,  if  our  protest  shall  be  disregarded,  we 
must  resort  to  war  to  maintain  it,  and  that  Louis  Kossuth  has  con- 
fessed so  much.  I  shall  not  stay  long  on  the  quibble  of  the  law- 
yers who  claim  to  have  circumvented  the  guest  at  the  feast  to 
which  they  had  bidden  him.  It  was  so  that  some  of  old  sought  to 
entangle  in  constructions  of  their  national  traditions  the  Great 
Teacher,  who  came,  not  to  dispute  with  doctors,  but  to  call  all 
men  to  repentance.  This  proceeding  is  mine,  not  that  of  the 
Hungarian  neophyte  in  American  politics.  It  is  to  be  settled 
upon  arguments  here,  not  on  concessions  elsewhere.  And  now, 
sir,  why  must  we  go  to  war  to  sustain  our  protest  ?  You  may 
say,  because  we  should  be  dishonored  by  abandoning  an  interest 
so  solemnly  asserted.  Sir,  those  who  oppose  the  protest  are  will- 
ing to  forsake  the  cause  of  Hungary  now.  "Will  it  be  more  dis- 
honorable to  relinquish  it  after  an  earnest  effort,  than  to  abandon 
it  without  any  effort  at  all  in  its  behalf?  Sir,  if  it  be  mere  honor 
that  is  then  to  prick  us  on,  let  the  timid  give  over  their  fears.  A 


INTERVENTION.  205 

really  great,  enlightened,  and  Christian  nation,  has  just  as  much 
need  to  make  war  on  a  false  point  of  honor,  as  a  really  great,  en- 
lightened, and  Christian  man  has  need  to  engage  in  a  personal 
contest  in  the  same  case ;  and  that  is  no  necessity  at  all.  Nor 
shall  we  be  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  war.  If  Hungary  shall 
never  rise,  there  will  be  no  casus  belli.  If  she  shall  rise,  we  shall 
have  right  to  choose  the  time  when  to  recognize  her  as  a  nation. 
That  recognition,  with  its  political  influence  and  commercial  bene- 
fits, will  be  adequate  to  prevent  or  counterbalance  Russian  inter- 
vention. But  I  am  answered,  that  we  shall  unnecessarily  oifend 
powers  whom  it  is  unwise  to  provoke.  I  reply,  that  it  is  not 
enough  for  a  nation  that  it  has  no  enemies.  Japan  and  China  are 
in  that  happy  condition.  It  is  necessary  that  a  state  should  have 
some  friends.  To  us,  exemption  from  hatred  obtained  by  insen- 
sibility to  crime  is  of  no  value  ;  still  less  is  the  security  obtained 
by  selfishness  and  isolation.  Only  generosity  ever  makes  friends, 
and  those  that  it  does  bring  are  grateful  and  enduring. 

Again,  then,  I  ask,  why  not  vindicate  the  Law  of  Nations  by  our 
protest  ?  One  Senator  [Mr.  CLEMENS]  draws  an  argument  against 
the  exercise  of  national  sympathy  from  the  character  and  conduct 
he  imputes  to  Louis  Kossuth,  and  represents  him  as  having  been 
reckless  and  uncalculating  before  danger  approached,  and  weak 
and  vacillating  and  shrinking  when  it  was  coming  on  ;  as  having 
abandoned  his  country  while  he  had  yet  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  thousand  men  ;  and  as  having  surrendered  the  state  unneces- 
sarily or  unwisely  to  one  who  for  months  he  had  believed  a  traitor  ; 
and  as  being,  therefore,  not  a  hero ;  and,  finally,  as  addicted  to 
military  display,  and  irreverent  of  the  ashes  of  Washington,  and 
therefore  not  a  republican. 

Sir,  if  these  assumptions  were  as  correct  and  just  as  it  has  suffi- 
ciently appeared  that  they  are  erroneous,  what  would  they  or  the 
objection  raised  upon  them  have  to  do  here  and  now?  This  is  a 
trial  of  Russia  at  the  bar  of  the  Public  Justice  of  the  World.  How 
can  the  verdict  be  affected  by  any  imagined  misconduct  of  Louis 
Kossuth  here,  after  Russian  intervention  in  Hungary  was  ended, 
or  even  by  any  errors  or  misconduct  before,  of  which  Hungary 
alone,  not  Russia,  had  right  to  complain  ?  The  objection  is  a* 
much  out  of  season  as  out  of  place.  The  character  of  Louis  Kos- 
suth was  a  preliminary  question,  and  has  been  decided  by  Congress 
with  unexampled  unanimity,  and  by  a  decree  awarding  such  hon- 

VOL.  1—14. 


206  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ors  as  the  American  people  had  before  found  none  worthy  to  re- 
ceive but  the  constant  and  generous  Lafayette. 

"  Gods,  of  •whatsoe'er  degree, 
Resume  not  what  themselves  have  given." 

Freedom,  sir,  often  undervalues,  and  sometimes  mistakes,  her 
friends ;  but  tyranny  never  is  deceived  in  her  enemies.  Let  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Alabama,  [Mr.  CLEMENS,]  convince  the 
treacherous  Bonaparte  that  Louis  Kossuth  is  not  a  man  to  be 
feared,  or  the  old  and  subtle  Metternich  that  Louis  Kossuth  is  not 
a  man  to  be  hated.  Until  then,  we  must  stand  upon  the  judgment 
we  have  already  rendered. 

Once  more,  then,  I  ask,  why  withhold  our  protest  ?  The  Sena- 
tor from  Alabama  [Mr.  CLEMENS]  would  reply,  that  Hungary  is 
an  integral  part  of  the  Austrian  Empire,  and  that  she  will  be  en- 
titled to  our  declaration  only  when  she  shall,  by  successful  revo- 
lution, have  established  her  independence.  The  form  of  my  pro- 
position defeats  the  objection.  Hungary  had  always  enjoyed  and 
in  that  very  way  had  re-established  her  independence  when  Rus- 
sia intervened.  Certainly  those  who  maintain  that  we  could  not 
now  employ  force  to  separate  Hungary  from  Austria,  when  Russia 
has  united  them  by  force,  cannot  deny  our  right  to  protest  against 
the  crime  that  Russia  thus  committed.  It  would  indeed  have 
been  better  to  have  protested  during  the  period  of  the  act  itself. 
But  the  period  was  short,  and  we  remote.  The  act  is  yet  recent, 
and  the  prospect  of  a  new  attempt  of  Hungary  continues  the 
transaction,  and  renders  a  censure  of  the  past  and  a  protest  against 
the  apprehended  renewal  of  Russian  intervention  important  and 
seasonable. 

There  remains  the  objection,  that  flows  so  readily  from  all  con- 
servative pens  and  tongues  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  still ' 
more  freely  from  the  stipendiary  presses  of  Paris  and  Vienna,  that 
a  protest  would  be  a  departure  from  the  traditional  policy  of  our 
country,  and  from  the  precepts  of  Washington.  It  is  passing 
strange,  sir,  that  Louis  Napoleon  and  Francis  Joseph  should  take 
so  deep  an  interest  in  our  adherence  to  our  time-honored  princi- 
ples, and  in  our  reverence  of  the  memory  of  him  who  inculcated 
them,  not  for  the  immunity  of  tyrants,  but  for  the  security  of  our 
own  welfare.  I  know  by  hearsay  that  an  association  during  our 
last  contest  with  Great  Britain  clothed  themselves  with  these  same 
principles,  and  even  with  that  illustrious  name  ;  that  they  called 


INTERVENTION.  207 

themselves  the  Washington  Benevolent  Society,  celebrated  the 
nativity,  and  quoted  the  Farewell  Address  of  Washington  to  em- 
barrass the  administration  in  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  an 
unjust  and  unholy  war,  even  when  it  had  become  a  war  of  national 
defence.  I  have  known  a  faction,  too,  that  planted  themselves  on 
the  same  sacred  text,  to  confine  to  persons  of  American  birth  the 
privileges  of  American  citizenship.  A  good  cause  needs  not  the 
sanction  of  that  awful  name.  A  bad  one  often  seeks,  although  it 
cannot  justly  claim  it.  Therefore,  I  always  take  the  liberty  to 
look  underneath  the  ma^htle  of  Washington,  on  whosesoever  shoul- 
ders I  find  it. 

Sir,  granting  for  a  moment  that  Washington  inculcated  just 
such  a  policy  as  is  claimed  by  my  opponents,  is  it  so  entirely  cer- 
tain that  it  ought  always  and  under  all  circumstances  to  be  pur- 
sued ?  Here  is  a  message  of  his  that  illustrates  the  policy  he 
adopted  toward,  not  one  only,  but  all  the  Barbary  powers,  and  it 
received,  I  think,  the.  unanimous  and  favorable  response  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

"May  8,  1792. 

"  To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

'•  If  the  President  should  conclude  a  convention  or  treaty  with  the  Government  of 
Algiers  for  the  ransom  of  the  thirteen  American  citizens  in  captivity  there,  for  a  sum 
not  exceeding  $40,000,  all  expenses  included,  will  the  Senate  approve  the  same  ?  If 
the  President  should  conclude  a  treaty  with  the  Government  of  Algiers,  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  peace  with  them,  at  an  expense  not  exceeding  $25,000,  paid  at  the  signa- 
ture, and  a  like  sum  to  be  paid  annually  afterward  during  the  continuance  of  the  treatv, 
would  the  Senate  approve  the  same  ?  '  "  GEO.  WASHINGTON." 

Sir,  you  and  I  an.d  all  of  us  would  have  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive to  these  questions,  had  we  lived  and  occupied  these  places  in 
the  last  century.  I  desire  to  ascertain  how  many  votes  such  a 
treaty  would  receive  here  now  ?  And  I  address  myself  to  the  hon- 
orable Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  [Mr.  CLAKKE,]  who  moved 
resolutions  against  any  departure  from  the  policy  of  Washington. 
Would  you,  sir,  pay  a  Barbary  Pirate  $40,000  to  ransom  thirteen 
captives  ?  and  $25,000  bonus,  and  $25,000  annually,  for  exemp- 
tion from  his  depredations  ?  He  looks  dissentingly.  I  appeal  to 
my  emulous  friend  from  New  Jersey,  [Mr.  MILLEK.]  Would  you, 
sir  ?  ]STo,  not  I.  I  demand  from  the  other  honorable  Senator  from 
New  Jersey,  [Mr.  STOCKTON,]  who,  in  the  triple  character  of  Sena- 
tor, Commodore,  and  General,  presided  at  the  Birthday  Congres- 
sional Banquet  in  honor  of  Washington,  and  dishonor  of  his  Hun- 
garian disciple,  Kossuth,  would  you,  sir  ?  No,  not  he.  All  who 


208  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

are  in  favor  of  such  a  treaty,  let  them  say,  Aye.  What,  sir !  not 
one  vote  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  the  continuance  of 
what  was  in  its  time  a  wise  and  prudent  as  well  as  humane  policy 
of  Washington !  No,  not  one.  And  why,  sir  ?  The  answer  is 
easy  :  The  times  have  changed,  and  we  have  changed  with  them. 
No  one  has  ever  thought  that  the  Spartans  wisely  continued  the 
military  monastery  after  their  state  was  firmly  established.  No 
one  ever  has  thought  that  the  rape  of  the  Sabine  women  by  the 
Romans  was  a  policy  to  be  perpetuated.  ^ 

But,  sir,  to  come  to  that  part  of  Washington's  policy  which  is 
directly  in  question.  I  shall  maintain  that  it  was  this.  It  con- 
sisted in  avoiding  new  entangling  alliances  and  artificial  ties  with 
one  of  the  belligerent  powers  in  a  general  European  war,  but  it 
admitted  of  expressions,  assurances,  and  manifestations  of  sympa- 
thy and  of  interest  in  behalf  of  nations  contending  for  the  princi- 
ples of  the  American  Revolution,  and  of  protest,  earnest  and 
decided,  against  the  intervention  of  foreign  powers  to  suppress 
these  principles  by  force  ;  and  this,  just  as  I  have  defined  it,  is  the 
traditional  policy  of  the  United  States,  and  it  has  been  pursued  until 
this  very  day  and  this  very  hour. 

Mr.  President :  I  might  well  excuse  myself  from  proving  the 
truth  of  this  proposition,  inasmuch  as,  on  the  principles  I  have 
established,  the  United  States,  being  a  moral  person,  could  not  but 
cherish  all  that  devotion  to  their  own  just  and  true  system  of  poli- 
tics which  the  policy  I  have  described  implies ;  and  being,  more- 
over, an  enlightened  as  well  as  generous  power,  they  could  not 
but  desire  to  see  it  successfully  adopted  by  other  nations ;  and 
being,  finally,  a  free  nation,  they  could  not  fail  to  speak  out  their 
sympathies  with  those  who  might  be  struggling  to  adopt  it,  and  to 
utter  their  indignation  at  armed  intervention  by  despotic  powers 
to  deprive  them  of  a  right  so  absolute,  and  of  benefits  so  inesti- 
mable. Least  of  all  could  George  Washington,  the  highest  human 
personation  of  justice  and  benevolence,  have  inculcated  any  other 
policy  than  that  which  I  have  described.  But  the  issue  is  one  of 
profound  and  lasting  importance.  And  therefore  history  shall 
prove  my  proposition  to  be  true,  and  vindicate  my  country  and 
her  immortal  founder. 

Political  philosophy,  as  the  last  century  was  approaching  its 
close,  was  engaged  in  an  effort  to  discover  the  true  theory  of  gov- 
ernment. The  American  Revolution  terminated  the  dispute,  by 


INTERVENTION.  209 

presenting  a  practical  experiment  of  a  free  representative  govern- 
ment, directly  established  by  the  people,  and  depending  not  merely 
for  administration,  but  for  continuance,  upon  their  ever-renewed, 
constant,  and  direct  activity.  France,  with  mingled  motives  of 
previous  favor  to  the  new  system,  and  of  opposition  to  a  hereditary 
rival,  had  recognized  the  United  States  at  an  early  day,  and  granted 
them  seasonable  and  effective  aid,  and  bound  them  to  her  by  a 
treaty  of  mutual  and  eternal  guaranty  and  alliance.  The  French 
Revolution  of  1Y89  was  the  American  Revolution  beginning  a 
new  career  in  Europe.  When,  in  1T92,  a  popular  constitution 
had  been  received  by  Louis  XYI,  he  announced  his  acceptance  of 
it  to  the  several  nations,  and  with  very  different  results.  It  roused 
all  the  monarchies  of  Europe,  sooner  or  later,  to  a  mighty  and 
combined  effort  for  the  extinguishment  of  the  popular  cause  in 
France,  as  a  necessary  measure  of  security  to  the  ancient  system. 
On  the  contrary,  the  President  of  the  United  States  transmitted 
the  virtuous,  but  irresolute  king's  letter  to  Congress.  The  House 
of  Representatives,  in  their  reply,  assured  him  of  their  "  sincere 
participation  in  the  interest  of  the  French  nation  on  that  great 
and  important  event,  and  of  their  wish  that  the  wisdom  and  mag- 
nanimity displayed  in  the  formation  and  acceptance  of  the  consti- 
tution might  be  rewarded  by  the  most  perfect  attainment  of  its 
object — the  permanent  happiness  of  so  great  a  people."  This,  sir, 
was  the  first  salutation  to  republicanism  in  Europe  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  and  it  was,  in  effect,  a  protest  against 
the  armed  intervention  then  organizing  beyond  the  Rhine.  Sar- 
dinia and  Austria,  on  the  other  hand,  entered  immediately  into  a 
treaty,  and  were  soon  afterward  followed  by  Russia,  the  Nether- 
lands, and  Great  Britain — and  thus  was  established  the  first  com- 
bination, under  the  name  of  the  Allied  Powers,  to  oppose  by  force 
the  principles  of  the  American  Revolution.  To  establish  this 
point,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  only  to  Wheat on's  History  of  the 
Law  of  Nations :  "  It  was  an  armed  intervention  to  restore  the 
ancient  order  of  things  in  France,  and  against  the  principles  of 
the  French  Revolution,  deemed  to  be  of  dangerous  example  and 
contagious  influence  on  the  neighboring  monarchies." 

On  the  22d  of  April,  1794,  when  France  had  adopted  the  repub- 
lican system,  and  had  driven  beyond  her  borders  the  allied  powers 
who  had  entered  them  to  vindicate  the  cause  of  the  deposed  and 
executed  monarch,  the  Committee  of  Safety,  exercising  the  execu- 


210  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

tive  functions  of  the  State,  announced  by  letter  to  our  Congress, 
that  "a  national  government  had  been  born  in  France,  and  with 
it  victory ;  that  internal  order  had  been  restored,  and  that  the  con- 
spirators against  the  republic  had  fallen  ;"  and  they  declared  their 
desire  to  "  draw  closer  than  ever  before  the  bonds  of  friendship 
which  united  the  French  Xation  and  the  United  States."  The 
Senate,  in  reply,  assured  the  Committee  of  Safety  of  their  "friend- 
ship and  good  will  for  the  French  Kepublic,"  and  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives  declared  themselves  duly  impressed  "by  the 
friendly  and  affectionate  manner  in  which  they  had  been  ad- 
dressed," and  tendered  "  an  unequivocal  assurance  that  the  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  much  interest 
in  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  French  Republic." 

The  question  of  a  closer  political  alliance  and  of  more  intimate 
artificial  ties  with  France,  thus  presented  formally  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Safety,  was  urged  upon  "Washington  with  discourtesy 
and  vehemence  by  agents  of  that  nation.  He  met  the  demand, 
and  denied  it  emphatically,  by  the  Proclamation  of  September, 
1794,  in  which  he  declared  that,  in  compliance  with  duty  and  in- 
terest, the  United  States  would  assume  and  maintain  a  neutral 
attitude  in  the  war  then  raging  in  Europe.  Disappointed  as 
France  was,  the  Convention  of  that  Republic  nevertheless,  within 
six  months  afterward,  ordered  the  American  flag  to  be  displayed 
as  a  symbol  of  their  principles  in  the  hall  of  their  debates,  and 
received  it,  when  presented  for  that  purpose  by  the  American 
Minister,  with  enthusiastic  demonstrations  of  respect  and  fraternal 
affection  toward  the  American  people. 

Sixteen  months  after  the  date  of  the  proclamation,  and  while  it 
continued  to  regulate  the  action  of  the  government,  Washington 
received  the  French  Minister,  Adet,  with  a  letter  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  Safety,  and  the  tri-colored  standard  of  the  French  Re- 
public, on  the  first  day  of  the  new  year- — a  day  specially  appointed, 
because  it  was  a  day  of  general  joy  and  congratulation.  The  com- 
mittee by  that  letter  informed  the  United  States  that  they  had 
received,  with  rapture,  assurances  of  sympathy,  which  had  been 
given  to  them  by  the  American  Minister  in  Paris,  and  added  that 
they  were  well  aware  that  the  United  States  truly  understood  that 
the  victories  of  the  French  strengthened  their  own  independence 
and  happiness.  Washington  replied,  that  "his  anxious  recollec- 
tions, his  sympathetic  feelings,  and  his  best  wishes,  were  irresisti- 


WASHINGTON'S  POLICY.  211 

bly  excited  whenever  he  saw  in  any  country  an  oppi^essed  nation 
unfurl  the  banner  of  freedom ;  and  that,  above  all,  the  events  of 
the  French  Revolution  had  produced  in  him  the  deepest  solicitude, 
as  well  as  the  highest  admiration."  Rising  into  a  tone  of  earnest- 
ness and  enthusiasm,  unusual  with  that  seemingly  imperturbable 
magistrate,  he  added  : 

"  I  rejoice  that  the  interesting  revolutionary  movements  of  so*  many  years,  have  is- 
sued in  the  formation  of  a  constitution  designed  to  give  permanency  to  the  groat  object 
for  which  you  have  contended.  I  rejoice  that  Liberty,  of  which  you  have  been  the  inva- 
riable defenders,  now  finds  an  asylum  in  the  bosom  of  a  regularly  organized  government 
— a  government  which,  being  formed  to  secure  the  happiness  of  the  French  people,  cor- 
responds with  the  ardent  wishes  of  my  heart,  while  it  gratifies  the  pride  of  every  citizen 
of  the  United  States  by  its  resemblance  to  their  own.  May  the  friendship  of  the  two 
republics  be  commensurate  with  their  existence." 

The  Senate  on  that  occasion  declared  that  they  "  united  with 
Washington  in  all  the  feelings  he  had  so  ardently  and  so  sublimely 
expressed."  The  scene  in  the  House  of  Representatives  was 
among  the  most  inspiring  ever  exhibited  in  the  Natal  Halls  of 
American  Independence.  On  taking  the  chair,  the  Speaker  an- 
nounced to  the  House  that  they  would  receive  a  communication 
which  would  excite  the  most  pleasing  satisfaction  in  every 
American  heart,  and  cautioned  the  representatives  and  the  people 
in  attendance  to  confine  the  fervor  of  their  enthusiasm  within  the 
restraints  of  propriety  and  dignity.  Washington's  message  was 
read,  the  colors  of  the  French  nation  were  received  and  unfurled, 
the  letter  of  the  Committee  of  Safety  was  submitted  and  consid- 
ered, and  thereupon  the  representatives  unanimously  resolved, 
amid  acclamations  in  and  around  the  chamber,  that  they  "  received 
the  communication  of  France  with  sincere  and  lively  sensibility, 
and  that  they  deemed  the  presentation  of  the  colors  of  the  French 
Republic  a  most  honorable  testimony  of  the  existing  sympathy 
and  affections  of  the  two  republics,  founded  on  their  solid  and 
reciprocal  interests,  and  that  they  rejoiced  in  the  opportunity  of 
congratulating  the  French  Republic  on  the  brilliant  and  glorious 
achievements  accomplished  under  it,  and  that  they  hoped  that 
those  achievements  would  be  attended  with  a  perfect  attainment 
of  their  objects — the  liberty  and  happiness  of  that  great  people." 
Sir,  were  not  these  ceremonies  a  demonstration  of  sympathy  with 
Democracy  in  Europe  ?  The  victories  thus  celebrated  were  won 
from  the  allied  powers  combined  to  oppress  France  by  force. 
Were  not  these  ceremonies  a  protest  against  their  unlawful  inter- 
vention ? 


212  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Nevertheless,  the  United  States  persevered  in  the  course  marked 
out  by  the  proclamation ;  and  Washington,  in  his  Farewell  Ad- 
dress, published  a  year  later,  declared,  in  language  truly  quoted 
here,  that  the  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foreign 
nations  was  in  extending  our  commercial  relations,  to  have  as  little 
political  connection  with  them  as  possible,  and  to  avoid  implicat- 
ing ourselves  by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  Euro- 
pean politics,  and  in  the  ordinary  combinations  and  collisions  of 
national  friendships  and  enmities.     Sir,  that  policy  was  necessary, 
and  for  that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  was  wise.     The  flames  of  war 
raged  throughout  Western  Europe,  and  its  lurid  blaze  lighted  up 
the  ocean.     Both  the  belligerents  recklessly  turned  pirates,  and 
supplied  themselves  by  the  robbery  of  our  unarmed,  unprotected 
merchant  vessels.     Great  Britain  still,  in  violation  of  the  recent 
treaty  of  peace,  held  the  military  posts  on  our  western  borders, 
and  had  control  of  the  passions  of  the  savages  among  and  around 
us,  and  was  only  waiting  a  pretext  for  a  decisive  blow  at  our 
newly-acquired  independence  ;  and  France  was  seeking  at  the  same 
time  to  involve  us  in  the  strife,  and  to  force  us  to  give  the  pre- 
text.    Nevertheless,  impatient  as  she  was  for  our  co-operation, 
she  was  herself  deranged  and  disorganized,  adopting  every  year 
a  new  constitution,  and  nearly  every  month  taking  for  her  execu- 
tive organ  some  new  and  more  reckless  and  ferocious  cabal,  and 
thus  was  unable  to  assure  us  against  the  treachery  of  her  own  do- 
mestic factions.     Well  did  Jefferson,  Secretary  of  State  to  Wash- 
ington, while  defending  the  policy  of  his  immortal  chief,  declare 
that  if  the  United  States  "  had  panted  for  war  as  much  as  ancient 
Rome — if  their  armies  had  been  as  effective  as  those  of  Prussia — • 
if  their  coffers  had  been  full  and  their  debts  annihilated  " — even 
then   peace  would  have  been  too  precious  to  have  been  put  at 
hazard  against  odds  so  fearful,  with  an  ally  more  dangerous  than 
the  enemy.     And  what  was  the  condition  of  the  United  States, 
that  they  should  have  periled  all  in  the  domestic  fury  of  France, 
or  on  the  angry  tide  of  her  foreign  conflicts  ?    An  infant  country, 
sunk  deep  in  debt,  without  any  land  or  naval  force,  with  an  armed 
enemy  on  her  borders,  and  from  necessity  paying  tribute  at  the 
same  time  to  the  African  Corsairs  ;  nay,  worse — unable  to  obtain 
their  forbearance,  because  unsuccessful  in  borrowing  funds  to  pay 
the  tribute  money.     What  less  than  madness  would  it  have  been 
to  have  entered  into  closer  alliancq,  and  to  have  assumed  more  in- 


MONROE'S  DOCTRINE.  213 

timate  ties  with  a  nation  whom  they  could  not  have  aided,  and 
in  going  to  whose  help  they  would  have  been  certain  to  have 
perished.  Solus  Populi  est  supremo,  lex.  Neutrality  was  a  neces- 
sity, and  therefore  a  duty. 

I  admit  that  the  policy  of  the  proclamation  was  continued 
throughout  the  whole  war,  until  its  close  in  1814.  Yes ;  and  I 
confess,  moreover,  that  congratulations  and  protests  ceased  with 
the  last  imposing  ceremony  I  have  described.  But  the  explana- 
tion of  both  of  these  facts  is  at  hand.  The  jealousy  of  the  bel- 
ligerents did  not  abate,  and  the  parties  changed  objects  and  char- 
acters. "When  Trance  wras  well  nigh  exhausted  by  factions,  the 
republic  went  down,  and  in  its  place  arose,  of  course,  a  dictator, 
and  afterward  an  empire.  She  who  had  at  first  taken  arms  in 
defence  of  national  rights  against  external  intervention,  afterward 
carried  war  into  the  bosoms  of  the  intervening  states  who  now 
resisted  their  late  enemy  to  save  Europe  from  an  armed  military 
despotism.  The  United  States  had  no  longer  a  cause  in  Europe 
to  congratulate,  to  protect,  or  to  defend. 

But  the  American  Revolution  broke  out  soon  in  another  region. 

O 

As  early  as  1810,  the  Spanish  provinces  of  South  America  declared 
their  independence,  and  resorted  to  arms  with  brilliant  success. 
The  allied  powers  of  Europe,  flushed  with  the  recent  triumph  over 
Napoleon,  frowned  on  the  new  "Western  Republics.  The  United 
States  held  at  first  a  subdued  tone,  in  consequence  of  severe  expe- 
rience in  their  war  with  England  then  just  closed.  Nevertheless, 
they  regarded  the  controversy  between  the  colonies  and  Spain, 
not  as  an  ordinary  insurrection,  but  as  a  civil  war  between  parties 
nearly  equal ;  while  the  President,  Monroe,  asked  Congress  for  a 
law  to  render  the  neutrality  code  more  stringent.  The  design  was 
alleged  to  be  to  prevent  the  departure  of  ships  built  at  Baltimore 
for  the  new  states.  This  policy  was  too  cold  and  prudent  for  the 
great  popular  leader  in  that  day  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
[Mr.  CLAY.]  He  proclaimed  that  the  President,  in  his  anxiety  to 
stand  erect,  leaned  against  freedom ;  and,  alluding  to  Spain  and 
the  Holy  League  as  oppressors  of  South  America,  he  declared 
"  he  had  no  sympathy  with  tyrants."  The  President  dispatched 
commissioners  to  seek  information  of  the  condition  and  prospects 
of  the  insurgents,  just  as  President  Taylor  recently  did  in  behalf 
of  Hungary,  and  with  the  same  object.  But  the  great  exponent 
of  American  Republicanism  was  not  satisfied,  and  he  thereupon 


214  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

moved  in  the  House  of  Representatives  an  appropriation  for  a  di- 
rect embassy  to  the  Republic  of  the  Rio  de  La  Plata.  In  support 
of  that  motion,  he  demanded,  with  noble,  spirit-stirring  vehemence : 
"  Are  we  not  bound  upon  our  own  principles  to  acknowledge  the 
new  republic  ?  If  we  do  not,  who  will  ?  Are  we  to  expect  that 
kings  will  set  us  the  example  of  acknowledging  the  only  republic 
on  earth  except  our  own  ?" 

A  year  later,  the  President,  Monroe,  taking  bolder  ground,  inti- 
mated to  Congress  and  to  the  world  quite  distinctly  the  interest 
with  which  the  United  States  regarded  the  consultations  of  the 
Holy  League.  After  saying,  in  the  courtly  language  of  diplomacy, 
that  they  had  undertaken  to  mediate  between  Spain  and  her  colo- 
nies, he  expressed  a  very  confident  belief  that  they  would  confine 
their  interposition  to  the  expression  of  their  sentiments,  abstaining 
from  force.  What  was  this,  sir,  but  an  expression  of  sympathy 
with  the  republics,  and  a  protest  against  armed  intervention  by 
the  Holy  League  of  Europe  ? 

One  more  year  ripened  these  sentiments  into  action.  "  It  is 
not  in  the  power  of  a  virtuous  people,"  said  the  President,  "  to  be- 
hold a  conflict  so  vitally  important  to  their  neighbors  without  the 
sensibility  and  sympathy  naturally  belonging  to  such  a  cause" 
And  after  announcing  that  he  had  tried  to  engage  the  co-operation 
of  other  powers  to  influence  Spain,  he  added,  certainly  very  much 
in  the  spirit  of  the  present  proceedings,  that,  "  should  it  become 
manifest  to  the  world  that  the  efforts  of  the  parent  state  to  subdue 
the  colonies  would  be  fruitless,  it  might  be  presumed  that  she 
would  relinquish  them." 

The  House  of  Representatives,  either  thinking  that  the  probable 
issue  was  already  manifest,  or  unwilling  to  wait  for  the  permission 
of  other  powers,  at  once  replied  to  the  President,  that  they  were 
even  then  ready  to  provide  for  diplomatic  relations  with  the  new 
republics  ;  and  they  tendered  to  him  their  constitutional  support 
of  a  recognition  of  them  whenever  he  should  be  pleased  to  grant  it. 
They  marked  this  decisive  declaration  by  the  unusual  formality  of 
sending  a  committee  to  announce  their  determination  to  the  Presi- 
dent, at  the  head  of  which  was  justly  placed  the  now  distinguished 
Senator  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  CLAY.]  A  medal  commemorating 
the  civic  achievements  of  that  eminent  leader  has  been  recently 
struck.  One  of  its  inscriptions  recites  this  great  triumph  in  behalf 


INTERVENTION.  215 

of  freedom  in  South  America.  Sir,  in  my  judgment,  it  was  the 
noblest  of  them  all. 

Long  after  the  recognition  of  the  South  American  republics, 
the  Holy  League  continued  to  entertain  the  appeal  of  Spain  for 
their  intervention.  But  the  spirit  of  the  American  people  would 
no  longer  brook  such  an  unlawful  act.  In  1823,  the  President 
[Monroe]  atoned  for  all  past  hesitation  by  that  decisive  and 
memorable  protest,  in  which,  after  urging  the  inapplicability  of 
the  principles  before  held  by  our  government  on  the  subject  of 
intervention  to  the  case  of  the  South  American  states,  he  avowed 
that  it  "  was  due  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable  relations  existing 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Allied  Powers  of  Europe,  to 
declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  ex- 
tend their  system  to  any  part  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to 

our  own  peace  and  safety And  that,  while  we  should 

still  remain  neutral  in  the  contest,  our  position  would  change  if 
their  intervention  should  render  it  necessary." 

The  Holy  League,  nevertheless,  kept  on  secretly  consulting  on 
mediation  with  the  sword  for  the  good  of  the  people  of  this  con- 
tinent, until  John  Quincy  Adams,  President,  not  appreciating  their 
benevolence  nor  having  the  fear  of  force  before  his  eyes,  accepted 
for  the  United  States,  with  the  support  of  Congress,  an  invitation 
to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  new  brotherhood  of  American  Repub- 
lics, called  to  discuss  measures  for  the  common  safety  and  welfare. 
While  explaining  the  reasons  for  that  measure,  that  incorruptible 
and  indomitable  magistrate  thus  renewed  the  protest  of  his  pre- 
decessor : 

"  To  the  question,  '  Whether  the  Congress  of  Panama,  and  the  principles  which  may 
be  adjusted  by  it,  may  not  give  umbrage  to  the  Holy  League  of  European  powers,  or 
offence  to  Spain,'  it  is  a  sufficient  answer,  that  it  can  give  no  just  cause  of  umbrage  or 
offence  to  either,  and  that  the  United  States  will  stipulate  nothing  there  which  shall  give 
such  just  cause.  Here  the  right  of  inquiry  into  our  purposes  and  measures  must  stop. 
The  fear  of  giving  umbrage  to  the  Holy  League  of  Europe  was  urged  as  a  motive  for 
denying  to  the  American  nations  the  acknowledgment  of  their  independence.  That  it 
would  be  viewed  by  Spain  as  hostile  to  her  was  not  only  urged,  but  directly  declared 
by  herself.  The  Congress  and  the  administration  of  that  day  consulted  their  rights  and 
duties,  and  not  their  fears.  Neither  the  representation  of  the  United  Slates  at  Panama, 
nor  any  measure  to  which  their  assent  may  be  yielded  there,  will  give  to  the  Holy 
League,  or  any  of  its  members,  or  to  Spain,  the  light  to  take  offence.  For  the  rest,  the 
United  States  must  still,  as  heretofore,  take  counsel  from  their  duties,  not  their  fears." 

And  now,  sir,  the  scene  changes  once  more  to  Europe.  Two 
thousand  years  ago,  mercurial,  vivacious,  spiritual  Greece,  after 
continued  and  restless  activity,  fell  asleep,  and  during  her  long 
slumber  the  false  prophet  of  the  Koran  bound  her  limbs  with  hate- 


216  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ful  and  corroding  chains.  Within  our  day  she  moved,  and  awaked, 
and  rose  from  the  earth,  and  seized  and  attempted  to  break  the 
instruments  of  her  bondage.  It  was  the  spirit  of  the  American 
Kevolution,  passing  by,  that  roused  her  from  that  lethargy  to  that 
noble  achievement.  The  Holy  League  of  Europe,  that  had  tram- 
pled freedom  beneath  their  feet  in  France,  and  menaced  it  so 
long  in  South  America,  consulted  how  to  crush  it  in  the  land  of 
Homer  and  Pericles  and  Alcibiades.  Greece,  confined  within  her 
miniature  islands  and  her  narrow  peninsula,  was  to  us  a  stranger, 
a  shadow  of  a  name,  known  to  us  only  by  her  primitive  instruc- 
tions in  all  philosophy,  by  her  perfection  in  all  ennobling  arts, 
and  by  her  nursing  care  of  our  holy  religion.  But  for  all  that  we 
were  not  indifferent ;  and  although  despotic  Europe  offered  to 
unite  with  superstitious  and  despotic  Asia  for  her  subjugation,  we 
were  encouraged  by  the  humane  sympathies  of  the  wrorld,  and  did 
not  quite  fear  to  speak  out.  "  It  is  impossible,"  said  the  Presi- 
dent, [Monroe,]  "  to  look  to  the  oppressions  of  Greece  without  be- 
ing deeply  affected.  A  strong  hope  is  entertained  that  that  people 
will  secure  their  independent  name  and  their  equal  standing  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  From  the  facts  which  have  come  to  our 
knowledge,  there  is  good  cause  to  believe  that  the  enemy  has  lost 
all  dominion  over  them,  and  that  Greece  will  become  an  inde- 
pendent nation.  That  she  may  obtain  that  rank,  is  the  object  of 
our  wishes."  This  expression  of  sympathy  for  Greece,  and  this 
protest  against  the  cruelty  and  oppression  of  her  tyrant,  was 
reiterated  every  year  until,  by  the  armed  intervention  of  other 
generous  powers,  their  object,  the  emancipation  of  that  people, 
was  obtained.  Who  can  say  now  how  much  they  did  not  contri- 
bute toward  that  gratifying  result  ? 

Mr.  President :  just  after  the  revolution  of  France  in  1830,  I 
had  the  honor  to  visit  Lafayette  in  La  Grange.  The  porch  of  his 
chateau  was  ornamented  with  two  brass  field-pieces  captured  from 
the  army  of  Charles  X.  by  the  citizens  of  Paris,  and  presented  to 
its  noble  proprietor.  The  hall  of  entrance  was  decorated  with  the 
mingled  drapery  of  the  tri-colored  flag  of  his  own  country  and  the 
stars  and  stripes  of  ours.  And  there  he  was  in  retirement,  cheer- 
ful and  hopeful,  although  disgusted  by  the  treachery  of  the  Citizen 
King  against  the  principles  of  the  American  Revolution,  to  which 
he  owed  his  throne.  "  Sir,"  said  Lafayette,  "  Louis  Philippe  will 
be  king  some  seventeen  or  eighteen  years  ;  but  no  son  of  his  will 


FREEDOM  IN  EUROPE.  217 

ever  sit  on  a  throne  in  France."  That  longest  period  had  not 
elapsed  when  the  throne  in  the  Tuilleries  disappeared,  and  the 
false  monarch  was  an  exile  in  England.  "We  all  recollect  that 
the  American  Minister,  without  waiting  for  a  permanent  organ- 
ization of  the  nation,  or  for  instructions  from  home,  or  for  intelli- 
gence of  the  dispositions  of  the  monarchs  of  Europe,  hastened  to 
intervene  and  commit  his  country  by  saluting  the  new  republic. 
The  President  [Polk]  acted  with  equal  promptness  and  decision. 

The  world  [said  he  to  Congress]  has  seldom  witnessed  a  scene  more  interesting  and 
sublime  than  the  peaceful  rising  of  the  French  people,  resolved  to  secure  to  themselves 
enlarged  liberty,  and  to  assert,  in  the  majesty  of  their  strength,  the  great  truth,  that,  in 
this  enlightened  age,  man  is  capable  of  governing  himself.  The  prompt  recognition  of 
her  new  Government  by  the  representative  of  the  United  States  meets  my  full  and  un- 
qualified approbation.  The  policy  of  the  United  States  has  ever  been  that  of  non-inter- 
vention in  the  domestic  affairs  of  other  countries — leaving  each  to  establish  the  form  of 
government  of  their  own  choice.  While  this  wise  policy  will  be  maintained  towards 
France,  now  suddenly  transformed  from  a  monarchy  into  a  republic,  all  our  sympathies 
are  naturally  enlisted  on  the  side  of  a  great  people  who,  imitating  our  example,  have 

resolved  to  be  free Our  ardent  and  sincere  congratulations  are  extended  to  the 

patriotic  people  of  France,  upon  their  noble  and  thus  far  successful  efforts  to  found  for 
their  future  government  liberal  institutions  similar  to  our  own." 

Congress  echoed  these  just  sentiments,  and,  in  the  name  and 
behalf  of  the  American  people,  "  tendered  their  congratulations 
to  the  people  of  France  upon  the  success  of  their  recent  efforts  to 
consolidate  the  principles  of  liberty  in  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment." 

Mr.  President :  a  spark  from  the  flame  which,  thus  breaking 
out  in  Paris,  was  regarded  with  so  much  pleasure  here,  kindled 
the  material  which  had  been  long  gathered  and  prepared  by  Louis 
Kossuth  and  his  compatriots  in  Hungary.  Remote  as  we  were, 
we  watched  and  followed  the  revolution  in  that  ancient  country 
with  intense  interest.  We  had  an  agent  there  ready  to  tender  our 
congratulations  ;  but  the  cause  went  down  under  the  iron  pressure 
of  Russian  intervention.  When  we  could  do  no  more,  we  sought 
the  exiled  chief  in  Turkey,  procured  his  release  from  duress  and 
surveillance  ;  and  while  the  Russian  and  Austrian  monarchs,  with 
menaces,  demanded  his  surrender  to  them  by  the  Ottoman,  we 
brought  him,  with  the  ovation  of  a  conqueror,  under  protection  of 
our  flag,  down  the  Mediterranean,  across  the  ocean,  and  home  to 
our  own  shores,  and  received  him  with  honors  that  have  divided 
the  homage  of  mankind  between  ourselves  and  him. 

Sir,  even  while  this  slow  and  languid  debate  has  been  going  on, 
we  have  interceded — informally,  indeed,  but  nevertheless  we  have 


218  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

interceded — with  Great  Britain  for  clemency  to  imprisoned  pa- 
triots who,  under  auspices  hopeless,  but  under  the  pressure  of 
national  evils  quite  intolerable,  had  attempted  to  renew  the  Ame- 
rican Revolution  in  Ireland.  And  you  and  I,  and  every  Senator 
here,  whether  he  suppresses  utterance  as  some  may  do,  or  speaks 
out  as  I  do,  is  earnestly  hoping  that  that  act  of  intercession  may 
prevail  with  the  amiable  and  virtuous  monarch  who  wields  a 
benignant  sceptre  over  those  realms. 

Here,  sir,  the  history  ends.  I  will  add  no  glosses  to  the  recital. 
I  will  not  attempt  to  simplify  the  subject,  involved  as  it  is  in  the 
confusion  resulting  from  the  want  of  definitions  of  intervention, 
and  from  the  neglect  to  discriminate  between  intervention  in  the 
domestic  affairs  of  a  nation  and  opposition  against  the  flagrant  act 
of  a  strong  foreign  power  in  attacking,  without  just  cause  or 
motive,  a  weak  but  brave  one  straggling  with  its  proper  enemy. 
I  shall  not  ask  the  Senate  or  the  country  to  distinguish  between 
intercession,  solicitation,  or  protest,  on  the  one  side,  and  armed 
intervention,  entangling  alliances,  and  artificial  ties,  on  the  other. 
I  will  only  say  that  either  this  Protest  is  not  an  Intervention,  or 
WTC  have  done  little  else  than  to  intervene  in  every  contest  for 
Freedom  and  Humanity  throughout  the  world  since  we  became  a 
nation.  That  if  this  act  be  wrong,  we  have  never  done  right.  If 
we  approve  and  own  the  precedents  of  our  predecessors,  this  act 
is  one  which  cannot  be  justly  or  wisely  omitted.  The  question 
before  us,  then,  is  not  whether  we  shall  depart  from  our  traditional 
policy,  but  whether  we  shall  adhere  to  it. 

Inasmuch  as  some  will  say  that  I  have  presented,  in  too  strong 
relief,  the  action  of  the  government  in  behalf  of  freedom,  I  call 
now  on  those  who  maintain  that  its  policy  has  been  one  of  indif- 
ference, to  show  one  act  that  the  United  States  ever  committed, 
one  word  that  they  ever  spake,  or  one  thought  that  they  ever 
indulged,  of  congratulation,  of  sympathy,  or  even  of  toleration, 
toward  a  falling  despotism  or  a  successful  usurpation. 

Having  vindicated  my  country  and  her  statesmen  against  the 
implications  of  indifference,  coldness,  and  isolation,  I  hope  it  will 
not  now  be  thought  presumptuous  on  my  part,  or  irreverent  to  the 
memory  of  Washington,  or  dangerous  to  the  state,  if  I  inquire  on 
what  principle  the  duty  of  neutrality  was  founded  by  that  illustri- 
ous man,  and  whether  he  enjoined  that  policy  as  one  of  absolute 
and  perpetual  obligation  ?  "  The  duty  of  holding  a  neutral  con- 


INTERVENTION.  219 

duct,"  said  he,  in  his  Farewell  Address,  "  may  be  inferred  without 
any  thing  more  from  the  obligation  which  justice  and  humanity 
impose  on  every  nation  in  cases  in  which  it  is  free  to  act  to  main- 
tain inviolate  the  relations  of  peace  and  amity  toward  other 
nations."  Our  "  freedom,"  in  that  case,  resulted  from  the  circum- 
stances which  excused  us  from  co-operating  with  France,  notwith- 
standing our  treaty  of  alliance  ;  and  the  exercise  of  "justice  and 
humanity  "  was  in  favor  of  our  own  people.  "  The  inducements 
of  interest  for  observing  that  conduct,  (said  he),  will  best  be  re- 
ferred to  your  own  reflections  and  experience.  With  me,  a  pre- 
dominant motive  has  been  to  endeavor  to  gain  time  to  settle  and 
mature  its  yet  recent  institutions,  and  to  progress  without  inter- 
ruption to  that  degree  of  strength  and  constancy  which  is  neces- 
sary to  give  it,  humanly  speaking,  the  command  of  its  own  for- 
tune." 

I  will  not  venture  on  such  a  question  as  whether  humanity  and 
justice  may  not,  in  some  contingencies,  require  that  wre  should 
afford  substantial  aid  to  nations  as  weak  as  we  were  in  our  revo- 
lutionary contest  when  we  shall  have  matured  our  strength.  Nor 
will  I  inquire  whether  time  enough  has  not  been  already  gained  to 
give  us,  speaking  always  with  a  due  sense  of  dependence  on  an 
ever-gracious  Providence,  the  command  of  our  own  fortune. 

It  is  clear  enough,  however,  that  we  distrust  our  strength  sel- 
dom, except  when  such  diffidence  will  serve  as  a  plea  for  the  non- 
performance  of  some  obligation  of  justice  or  of  humanity.  But  it 
is  not  necessary  to  press  such  inquiries.  What  is  demanded  here 
is  not  any  part  of  our  fifty  millions  of  annual  revenue,  nor  any  use 
of  our  credit,  nor  any  employment  of  our  army  or  of  our  navy,  but 
simply  the  exercise  of  our  free  right  of  speech.  If  we  arc  not 
strong  enough  now  to  dare  to  speak,  shall  we  be  bolder  when  we 
become  stronger  ?  If  we  are  never  to  speak  out,  for  wyhat  were 
national  lungs  given  us  ? 

Senators  and  Representatives  of  America,  if  I  may  borrow  the 
tone  of  that  sturdy  republican,  John  Milton,  I  would  have  you 
consider  what  nation  it  is  of  which  you  are  governors — a  nation 
quick  and  vigorous  of  thought,  free  and  bold  in  speech,  prompt 
and  resolute  in  action,  and  just  and  generous  in  purpose — a  nation 
existing  for  something,  and  designed  for  something  more  than 
indifference  and  inertness  in  times  of  universal  speculation  and 
activity.  Why  else  was  this  nation  chosen,  that  "  out  of  her,  a- 


220  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

out  of  Sinai,  should  be  proclaimed  and  sounded  forth  the  first 
tidings  and  trumpet "  of  political  reformation  to  all  nations  ?  I 
would  have  you  remember  that  the  love  of  liberty  is  a  public 
affection  which  this  nation  has  deeply  imbibed  and  has  effectually 
diffused  throughout  the  world ;  and  that  she  cannot  now  suppress 
it,  nor  smother  her  desires  to  promote  that  glorious  cause,  for  it  is 
her  own  cause. 

Mr.  President :  I  thought  that  after  answering  the  objections 
against  this  protest,  I  would  show  affirmatively  why  it  ought  to  be 
adopted.  But  with  the  disappearance  of  opposing  arguments,  the 
reasons  in  favor  of  it  have  risen  with  sufficient  distinctness  into 
view.  I  will  only  add  that  it  is  time  to  protest.  The  new  out- 
works of  our  system  of  politics  in  Europe  have  all  been  carried 
away.  Kepublicanism  has  now  no  abiding  place  there,  except 
on  the  rock  of  San  Marino  and  in  the  mountain  home  of  William 
Tell.  France  and  Austria  are  said  to  be  conspiring  to  expel 
it  even  there.  In  my  inmost  heart,  I  could  almost  bid  them  dare 
to  try  an  experiment  which  would  arouse  the  nations  of  Europe 
to  resist  the  commission  of  a  crime  so  flagrant  and  so  bold. 

I  have  heard  frequently,  here  and  elsewhere,  that  we  can  pro- 
mote the  cause  of  freedom  and  humanity  only  by  our  example, 
and  it  is  most  true.  But  what  should  that  example  be  but  that 
of  performing  not  one  national  duty  only,  but  all  national  duties ; 
not  those  beginning  and  ending  with  ourselves  only,  but  those 
also 'which  we  owe  to  other  nations  and  to  all  mankind?  Ko  dim 
eclipse  will  suffice  to  illuminate  a  benighted  world. 

I  have  the  common  pride  of  every  American  in  the  aggrandize- 
ment of  my  country.  Xo  effort  of  mine  to  promote  it,  by  just 
and  lawful  means,  ever  was  or  ever  will  be  withheld.  Our  flag, 
when  it  rises  to  the  topmast  or  the  turret  of  an  enemy's  ship  or 
fortress,  excites  in  me  a  pleasure  as  sincere  as  in  any  other  man. 
And  yet  I  have  seen  that  flag  on  two  occasions  when  it  awakened 
even  more  intense  gratification.  One  was  when  it  entered  the 
city  of  Cork,  covering  supplies  for  a  chivalrous  and  generous  bnt 
famishing  people.  The  other  was  when  it  recently  protected  in 
his  emigration  an  exile  of  whom  continental  Europe  was  unworthy, 
and  to  whom  she  had  denied  a  refuge.  Sir,  it  raised  no  surprise 
and  excited  no  regret  in  me,  as  it  did  in  some,  to  see  that  exile 
and  that  flag  alike  saluted  and  honored  by  the  people,  and  alike 
feared  and  hated  by  the  kings  of  Europe. 


INTERVENTION".  221 

Let  others  employ  themselves  in  devising  new  ligaments  to  bind 
these  states  together.  They  shall  have  my  respect  for  their  patriot- 
ism and  their  zeal.  For  myself,  I  am  content  with  the  old  ones 
just  as  I  find  them.  I  believe  that  the  Union  is  founded  in  physi- 
cal, moral,  and  political  necessities,  which  demand  one  govern- 
ment, and  would  endure  no  divided  states ;  that  it  is  impregnable, 
therefore,  equally  to  force  or  to  faction ;  that  Secession  is  a  fever- 
ish dream,  and  Disunion  an  unreal  and  passing  chimera ;  and  that, 
for  weal  or  woe,  for  liberty  or  servitude,  this  great  country  is  one 
and  inseparable.  I  believe,  also,  that  it  is  Righteousness,  not 
greatness,  that  exalteth  a  nation,  and  that  it  is  Liberty,  not  repose, 
that  renders  national  existence  worth  possessing.  Let  me,  then, 
perform  my  humble  part  in  the  service  of  the  republic,  by  cul- 
tivating the  sense  of  justice  and  the  love  of  liberty  which  are 
the  elements  of  its  being,  and  by  developing  their  saving  in- 
fluences, not  only  in  our  domestic  conduct,  but  in  our  foreign  con- 
duct also,  and  in  our  social  intercourse  with  all  other  states  and 
nations. 

It  has  already  come  to  this — that  whenever  in  any  country  an 
advocate  of  freedom,  by  the  changes  of  fortune,  is  driven  into 
exile,  he  hastens  to  seek  an  asylum  here ;  that  whenever  a  hero 
falls  in  the  cause  of  freedom  on  any  of  her  battle-fields,  his  eyes 
involuntarily  turn  towrard  us,  and  he  commits  that  cause  with  a 
confiding  trust  to  our  sympathy  and  our  care.  Never,  sir,  as  we 
value  the  security  of  our  own  freedom,  or  the  welfare  and  happi- 
ness of  mankind,  or  the  favor  of  Heaven,  that  has  enabled  us  to 
protect  both,  let  that  exile  be  inhospitably  repulsed.  ISTever  let 
the  prayer  of  that  dying  hero  fall  on  ears  unused  to  hear,  or  spend 
itself  upon  hearts  that  refuse  to  be  moved. 

NOTE. — Louis  KOSSLTH  arrived  in  this  country  on  the  4th  day  of  December,  1851,  having 
been  invited  hither  by  a  joint  resolution  of  Congress.  He  reached  Washington  on  the  30th 
day  of  the  same  month.  The  Senate  had  appointed  a  committee  (Senators  Cass,  Seward 
and  Shields)  to  wait  upon  him  on  his  arrival.  A  welcome  to  the  country  and  to  the  Capitol 
had  been  extended  to  him  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  of  both  Houses,  six  in  the  Senate 
and  sixteen  in  the  House,  only,  voting  in  the  negative.  He  was  formally  received  also  by 
the  President,  Mr.  Fillmore,  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Webster,  and  by  Henry  Clay. 
A  public  dinner  was  given  to  him  in  Washington,  at  which  Daniel  Webster,  Senators  Cass 
and  Douglass  made  long  and  eloquent  speeches  avowing  substantially  their  assent  to  the 
doctrine  that  the  United  States  ought  to  interfere  to  prevent  Kussian  intervention  against 
the  independence  of  Hungary. — ED. 


YOL.  1—15. 


222  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


AMEKICAN    STEAM    NAVIGATION. 

'  APRIL   27,  1852. 

WHAT  will  Congress  do — what  has  Congress  done — for  the  Col- 
lins steamers  ?  These  are  questions  which  meet  every  visitor 
returning  from  the  capital  on  his  arrival  at  New  York,  and  which 
every  traveller  from  America  encounters,  on  'Change  in  Liverpool 
and  London,  and  in  the  Courts  of  Paris  and  St.  Petersburg. 
There  is  reason  enough  for  all  this  curiosity  and  interest  among 
the  merchants  and  statesmen  of  the  two  continents. 

Under  a  contract  with  the  United  States,  made  on  the  19th  of 
April,  1849,  between  E.  Iv.  Collins,  James  Brown,  and  Stewart 
Brown,  merchants  of  New  York,  and  the  United  States,  those  per- 
sons now  prosecute,  between  the  ports  of  New  York  and  Liver- 
pool, forty  voyages  across  the  ocean,  or  twenty  outward  and  in- 
ward voyages,  annually,  in  steamships,  carrying  freight  and 
passengers  on  their  own  account,  and  also  public  mails  on  account 
of  the  United  States,  and  receive  from  the  treasury,  as  a  compen- 
sation for  that  service,  three  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand 
dollars  a  year,  which  is  equivalent  to  somewhat  more  than  $19,000 
for  each  outward  and  return  passage.  The  Committee  on  Finance 
propose  an  amendment  to  the  annual  Deficiency  Bill,  the  effect  of 
which  is  to  increase  the  number  of  mails  and  voyages  from  twenty 
to  twenty-six,  and  the  compensation  from  $19,000  to  $33,000  for 
each  voyage. 

OUGHT  THIS  MEASURE  TO  BE  ADOPTED  ? 

I  assume,  for  the  present,  that  the  existing  enterprise  is  to  be 
perseveringly  sustained.  In  that  view  a  question  arises— 

Whether  the  proposed  increase  of  mail  service  is  expedient? 

When  this  line  was  established,  the  British  Cunard  steamers, 
consisting  of  seven  vessels,  were  making  semi-monthly  voyages 
and  carrying  semi-monthly  mails  between  the  same  ports  during 
the  eight  temperate  months,  and.  monthly  mails  during  the  four 
other  months ;  and  thus  they  had  a  monopoly  of  steam  ocean  post- 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  223 

age  between  the  two  countries.  We  authorized  the  Collins  line 
to  carry  just  the  same  number  of  mails,  alternating  with  the 
Cunard  steamers ;  and  so  we  broke  up  the  monopoly,  and  divided 
the  postages  of  the  route  equally  with  Great  Britain.  So  far,  all 
was  right  and  well.  But  recently  the  Cunard  steamers  have  con- 
tinued their  semi-monthly  mails  throughout  the  whole  year,  while 
ours  were  limited  to  the  eight  temperate  months ;  and  so  the 
equality  of  postage  revenues  has  been  subverted,  and  the  early 
British  monopoly  has  been  partially  restored.  By  the  proposed 
increase  of  mails  we  shall  exactly  alternate  again  ;  and  on  every 
day  that  an  American  or  European  mail  steam-vessel  shall  leave 
New  York,  one  of  the  other  line  will  leave  the  opposite  port ;  and 
so  the  monopoly  will  again  be  broken,  and  the  complete  equality 
of  postage  revenues  will  be  re-established.  "We  must  do  just  this, 
or  relinquish,  in  an  important  degree,  the  great  postal  object  of 
the  enterprise.  The  Postmaster-General,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  and  the  Senate's  Committees  on  the  Post  Office,  on  Naval 
Affairs,  and  on  Finance,  agree  that  the  service  must  be  thus  in- 
creased, if  it  is  to  be  at  all  continued.  The  increase,  then,  is  not 
merely  expedient,  but  even  necessary  and  indispensable. 

Assuming  now  that  the  service  is  to  be  increased,  a  question 
comes  up — 

Is  the  increase  of  compensation  from  $19,000  to  $33,000  per 
voyage  just  and  reasonable  ? 

It  is  just  and  reasonable,  if  necessary.  It  is  clear  that  some  in- 
crease is  necessary.  The  proprietors  decline  to  make  the  six  new 
voyages  for  nothing,  and  even  to  make  them  for  $19,000  a  voy- 
age. We  cannot  oblige  the  contractors  to  make  them  for  that 
compensation,  nor  even  to  make  them  for  any  compensation,  for 
they  are  beyond  the  contract.  No  one  else  offers  to  make  them  on 
those  terms,  or,  indeed,  on  any  terms.  We  must  therefore  apply  to 
Mr.  Collins  and  his  associates  to  enlarge  the  contract.  But  opening 
the  contract  for  enlargement,  opens  it  for  revision.  They  consent  to 
enlarge,  but  they  equally  appeal  to  us  to  remodel  it ;  and  they  assign 
the  reason,  that  while  the  average  cost  of  each  voyage  is  $65,216  64 
the  average  receipts  are  only  -  -  48,286  85 


and  that  they  incur  an  average  loss  of     -        -  16,928  79 


and  an  aggregate  loss  annually  of   -        -        -        -   $338,574  40 


224  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

They  further  show  that  a  capital  of  three  millions  invested  has 
paid  no  dividends,  and  been  reduced  by  inevitable  losses  to  a  little 
more  than  two  and  a  half  millions ;  that  their  stock  is  sold  in  "Wall 
street  at  fifty  cents  on  a  dollar ;  and  that,  even  if  they  would,  yet 
they  cannot  dispatch  another  ship  or  mail  after  the  15th  of  May 
next.  Something  must  be  allowed,  if  not  for  profits,  at  least  for 
renovation ;  and  so  the  actual  loss  on  each  voyage  being  in  round 
numbers  $17,000,  it  is  quite  certain  that  an  increase  of  not  less 
than  $19,000  is  necessary  to  keep  the  steamers  in  vigorous  and 
sure  operation. 

All  questions  of  the  fairness  of  this  showing  are  precluded  by 
the  offer  of  the  contractors  to  relinquish  the  enterprise  to  the 
United  States,  or  to  any  assignee  indicated  by  them,  after  the 
contract  shall  have  been  remodelled,  and  by  the  neglect  of  any 
other  party  to  propose  for  a  new  contract,  even  on  the  terms  thus 
recommended. 

So,  the  increase  of  compensation  solicited  is  just  and  reasonable, 
and  is,  moreover,  like  the  increase  of  the  mail  service,  necessary 
and  indispensable. 

Now,  sir,  we  have  arrived  at  the  very  question  of  the  whole 
question.  "\Ye  must  do  just  what  is  thus  proposed,  or  relinquish 
the  contract  altogether. 

The  honorable  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  [Mr. 
HUNTEE,]  dissenting  from  his  associates,  advises  that  alternative. 
Sir,  with  a  profound  respect  for  that  distinguished  senator,  not 
now  for  the  first  time,  nor  for  mere  effect,  expressed,  I  must  have 
his  pardon,  nevertheless,  for  preferring  the  authority  of  his  asso- 
ciates. Extreme  caution  is  apt  to  be  the  fruit  of  the  patient  and 
patriotic  labors  of  his  office.  An  appropriation  bill  seldom  has 
passed  this  House  without  calling  forth  from  him  or  his  predeces- 
sors eloquent  yet  groundless  alarms  of  an  exhausted  treasury,  and 
of  impending  taxation,  if  not  bankruptcy. 

While  we  cannot,  without  wounding  the  national  sensibilities 
and  impairing  the  national  character,  abandon  any  great  enter- 
prise, it  is  equally  true  that  indecision  is  among  the  worst  vices 
of  the  statesman,  and  that  vacillation  in  the  conduct  of  public 
affairs  is  fruitful  of  national  demoralization,  and  indicative  of  cer 
tain  national  decline.  Persistence,  when  practicable,  invigorates 
national  energies,  discourages  foreign  rivalry,  and  prevents 
foreign  insult  and  aggression.  Compare  France — enlightened, 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  225 

vigorous,  and  energetic,  but  unstable  as  water — with.  England, 
cautious,  constant,  and  persevering,  or  even  with  Russia,  unim- 
passioned  and  cold  as  her  climate,  yet  with  her  eyes  unswervingly 
and  forever  fixed  on  Stamboul,  and  you  have  an  apt  illustration 
of  my  moral.  Nevertheless,  these  general  observations  are  incon- 
clusive, and  I  grapple  therefore  cheerfully  with  this  great  ques- 
tion. 

If  this  enterprise  must  be  abandoned,  it  must  be  for  one  of 
two  reasons,  namely  :  either  because — 

1.  It  was  erroneously  conceived  ;  or  because,  2.  It  has  been 
rendered  unnecessary,  unwise,  or  impracticable,  by  subsequent 
events  and  circumstances. 

1.  Was  it  erroneously  conceived?  To  determine  this  question, 
we  need  to  ascend  some  high  eminence  of  time,  from  which  we 
can  look  back  along  the  past,  and  pierce,  as  far  as  is  allowed  to 
human  vision,  through  the  clouds  and  darkness  that  rest  upon  the 
future.  Come,  then,  Senators,  and  suppose  that  you  stand  with 
me  in  the  galleries  of  St.  Stephen's  Chapel,  on  a  day  so  long  gone 
by  as  the  22d  of  March,  1775.  A  mighty  debate  has  been  going 
on  here  in  this  august  Legislature  of  the  British  Empire.  Insur- 
rection against  commercial  restriction  has  broken  out  in  the  dis- 
tant American  colonies ;  a  seditious  assembly  in  Philadelphia  has 
organized  it ;  and  a  brave,  patient,  unimpassioned,  and  not  untried, 
soldier  of  Virginia,  lies,  with  hastily-gathered  and  irregular  levies, 
on  the  heights  of  Dorchester,  waiting  the  coming  out  of  the  British 
army  from  Boston.  The  question  whether  Great  Britain  shall 
strike,  or  concede  and  conciliate,  has  just  been  debated  and  de- 
cided. Concession  has  been  denied.  A  silence,  brief  but  intense, 
is  broken  by  the  often  fierce  and  violent,  but  now  measured  and 
solemn,  utterance  of  Burke  :  "  My  counsel  has  been  rejected.  You 
have  determined  to  trample  upon  and  extinguish  a  people  who 
have,  in  the  course  of  a  single  life,  added  to  England  as  much  as 
she  had  acquired  by  a  progressive  increase  of  improvement, 
brought  on,  by  varieties  of  civilizing  conquests  and  civilizing  settle- 
ments, in  a  series  of  seventeen  hundred  years.  A  vision  has 
passed  before  my  eyes ;  the  spirit  of  prophecy  is  upon  me.  Listen, 
now,  to  a  revelation  of  the  consequences  which  shall  follow  your 
maddened  decision.  Henceforth,  there  shall  be  division,  separa- 
tion, and  eternal  conflict  in  alternating  war  and  peace  between 
you  and  the  child  you  have  oppressed,  which  has  inherited  all 


226  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

your  indomitable  love  of  liberty  and  all  your  insatiable  passion 
for  power.     Though  still  in  the  gristle,  and  not  yet  hardened  into 
the  bone  of  manhood,  America  will,  within  the  short  period  of 
sixteen  months,  cast  off  your  dominion  and  defy  your  utmost  per- 
secution.    Perfecting  the  institutions  you  have  not  yet  suffered  to 
ripen,  she  will  establish  a  republic,  the  first  confederate  represent- 
ative commonwealth,  which  shall  in  time  become  the  admiration 
and  envy  of  the  world.     France,  the  hereditary  rival  whom,  only 
twenty  years  ago,  with  the  aid  of  your  own  colonies,  you  despoiled 
of  her  North  American  possessions,  though  they  had  been  strength- 
ened by  the  genius  of  Richelieu,  will  take  sweet  revenge  in  aiding 
the  emancipation  of  those  very  colonies,  and  thus  dismembering 
your  empire.     You  will  strike  her  in  vain  with  one  hand,  while 
you  stretch  forth  the  other  to  reduce  your  colonies  with  equal  dis- 
comfiture.    And  you,  even  you,  most  infatuated  yet  most  loyal 
Prince,  will  within  eight  years  sign  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the 
royal  Bourbon,  and  of  independence  with  republican  America  ! 
With  fraud,  corruption,  fire  and  sword,  you  will  compensate  Eng- 
land with  conquests  in  the  East,  and  within  half  a  century  they 
will  surround  the  world,  and  the  British  flag  shall  wave  over  pro- 
vinces covering  five  millions  of  square  miles,  and  containing  one- 
sixth  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  globe.     Nor  shall  you  lose  your 
retaliation  upon  your  ancient  enemy ;  for  she,  in  the  mean  time, 
imbibing  and  intoxicated  by  the  spirit  of  revolution  in  her  Ame- 
rican affiliation,  shall  overthrow  all  authority,  human  and  divine, 
and,  exhausting  herself  by  twenty-five  years  of  carnage  and  desola- 
tion throughout  continental  Europe,  shall  at  last  succumb  to  your 
victorious  arms,  and  relapse,  after  ineffectual  straggles,  into  the 
embraces  of  an  inglorious  military  despotism.     Yet,  notwithstand- 
ing all  these  unsurpassed  conquests  and  triumphs,  shall  you  enjoy 
no  certain  or  complete  dominion.     For,  on  the  other  hand,  wild 
beasts  and  savage  men  and  uncouth  manners  shall  all  disappear 
on  the  American  continent ;  and  the  three  millions  whom  you  now 
despise,  gathering  to  themselves  increase  from  every  European 
nation  and  island,  will,  within  seventy-five  years,  spread  them- 
selves over  field  and  forest,  prairie  and  mountain,  until,  in  your 
way  to  your  provinces  in  the  Bahamas,  they  shall  meet  you  on  the 
shores  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  on  your  return  from  the  Eastern 
Indies,  they  will  salute  you  from  the  Eastern  coast  of  the  Pacific- 
ocean.     In  the  mean  time,  with  genius  developed  by  the  influence 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  227 

of  freedom,  and  with  vigor  called  forth  and  disciplined  in  the  sub- 
jugation of  the  forest,  and  trained  and  perfected  in  the  mysteries 
of  ship-building  and  navigation,  by  the  hardy  exercise  of  the 
whale  fisheries  under  either  pole,  they  will,  in  all  European  con- 
flicts, with  keen  sagacity,  assume  the  relation  of  neutrals,  and  thus 
grasp  the  prize  of  Atlantic  commerce  dropped  into  their  hands  by 
fierce  belligerents.  In  the  midst  of  your  studies  and  experiments 
in  hydraulics,  steam  and  electricity,  they  will  seize  the  unpracticed 
and  even  incomplete  inventions,  and  cover  their  rivers  with  steam- 
boats, and  connect  and  bind  together  their  widely  separated  terri- 
tories with  catials,  railroads,  and  telegraphs.  When  a  long  inter- 
val of  peace  shall  have  come,  your  merchants,  combining  a  vast 
capital,  will  regain  and  hold  for  a  time  the  carrying  trade,  by  sub- 
stituting capacious,  buoyant,  and  fleet  packet-ships,  departing  and 
arriving  with  exact  punctuality  ;  but  the  Americans,  quickly  bor- 
rowing the  device,  and  improving  on  your  skill,  will  reconquer 
their  commerce.  You  will  then  rouse  all  the  enterprise  of  your 
merchants,  and  all  the  spirit  of  your  Government,  and  wresting 
the  new  and  mighty  power  of  steam  from  the  hands  of  your  in- 
veterate rival,  will  apply  it  to  ocean  navigation,  and  laying  hold 
of  the  commercial  and  social  correspondence  between  the  two 
continents,  increasing  as  the  nations  rise  to  higher  civilization  and 
come  into  more  close  and  intimate  relations,  as  the  basis  of  postal 
revenue,  you  will  thus  restore  your  lost  monopoly  on  the  Atlantic, 
and  enjoy  it  unmolested  through  a  period  of  ten  years.  During 
that  season  of  triumph,  you  will  mature  and  perfect  all  the  ar- 
rangements for  extending  this  mighty  device  of  power  and  revenue, 
so  as  to  connect  every  island  of  the  seas  and  every  part  of  every 
continent  with  your  capital.  But  just  at  that  moment,  your  emu- 
lous rival  will  appear  with  steamships  still  more  capacious,  buoyant, 
and  fleet,  than  your  own,  in  your  harbors,  and  at  once  subverting 
your  Atlantic  monopoly,  will  give  earnest  of  her  vigorous  renewal 
of  the  endless  contest  for  supremacy  of  all  the  seas.  When  you 
think  her  expelled  from  the  ocean,  her  flag  will  be  seen  in  your 
ports,  covering  her  charities  contributed  to  relieve  your  popula- 
tion, stricken  by  famine  ;  and  while  you  stand  hesitating  whether 
to  declare  between  republicanism  and  absolute  power  in  con- 
tinental Europe,  her  ambassadors  will  be  seen  waiting  on  every 
battle-field  to  salute  the  triumphs  of  liberty  ;  and  when  that  cause 
shall  be  overthrown,  the  same  constant  flag  shall  be  seen  even  in 


228  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

the  Straits  of  the  Dardanelles,  receiving  with  ovations  due  to  con- 
querors the  temporarily  overthrown  champions  of  freedom.  Look 
toward  Africa!  there  you  see  American  colonies  lifting  her  up 
from  her  long  night  of  barbarism  into  the  broad  light  of  liberty 
and  civilization.  Look  to  the  East,  you  see  American  missionaries 
bringing  the  people  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  into  the  family  of 
nations,  and  American  armaments  peacefully  seeking  yet  firmly 
demanding  the  rights  of  humanity  in  Japan.  Look  to  the  Equator, 
there  are  American  engineers  opening  passages  by  canals  and  rail- 
roads across  the  isthmus  which  divides  the  two  oceans.  And  last 
of  all,  look  Northward,  and  you  behold  American  sailors  penetrat- 
ing the  continent  of  ice  in  search  of  your  own  daring  and  lost 
navigators." 

Sir,  this  stupendous  vision  has  become  real.  All  this  moment- 
ous prophecy  has  come  to  pass.  The  man  yet  lives  who  has  seen 
both  the  end  and  the  beginning  of  its  fulfilment.  It  is  history. 
And  that  history  shows  that  this  enterprise  of  American  Atlantic 
steam  navigation  was  wisely  and  even  necessarily  undertaken,  to 
maintain  our  present  commercial  independence,  and  the  contest 
for  the  ultimate  empire  of  the  ocean.  Only  a  word  shall  express 
the  importance  of  these  objects.  International  postal  communica- 
tion and  foreign  commerce  are  as  important  as  domestic  mails  and 
traffic.  Equality  with  other  nations  in  respect  to  those  interests 
is  as  important  as  freedom  from  restriction  upon  them  among  our- 
selves. Except  Rome — which  substituted  conquest  and  spoliation 
for  commerce, — no  nation  was  ever  highly  prosperous,  really  great, 
or  even  truly  independent,  whose  foreign  communications  and 
traffic  were  conducted  by  other  states ;  while  Tyre,  and  Egypt, 
and  Venice,  and  the  Netherlands,  and  Great  Britain,  successively 
becoming  the  merchants,  became  thereby  the  masters  of  the 
world. 

But  the  learned  and  honorable  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Finance  raises  a  question  on  a  warlike  feature  of  the  enterprise, 
which  has  not  yet  come  under  our  notice.  Departing,  after  the 
most  profound  consideration,  from  the  ancient  naval  policy  which 
separated  the  National  Ocean  Police  from  the  National  Mercantile 
Marine,  Great  Britain  constructs  all  the  steamships  employed  in 
her  postal  service  ;  so  that  they  are  "  good,  substantial,  and  efficient 
—of  such  model  and  strength  as  to  be  fit  and  able  to  carry  guns 
of  the  largest  caliber  used  on  board  of  her  Majesty's  steam-vessels 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  229 

of  war,"  and  they  are  subject  to  be  taken  in  emergencies  by  the 
government,  at  cost,  for  the  public  naval  service.  And  in  this 
way,  Great  Britain  is  rapidly  and  steadily  building  up  a  new  and 
peculiar  naval  force,  which  will  always  be  in  complete  condition 
and  ready  for  effective  use.  The  same  principle  was  adopted  in 
the  contract  with  Collins  and  his  associates  ;  and  the  evidence  is 
complete  that  it  has  been  faithfully  and  fully  carried  out.  The 
honorable  Senator  now  disputes  the  soundness  of  the  principle 
itself,  and  insists  that  merchant  steam-vessels  cannot  be  constructed 
so  as  to  be  practically  useful  for  warlike  purposes.  I  reply,  first, 
that  having,  on  such  careful  examination  and  with  such  weighty 
example,  adopted  the  principle,  we  could  not  now  wisely  abandon 
it,  without  proof,  by  practical  trial,  long  I  hope  to  be  delayed, 
that  it  is  erroneous.  Secondly:  no  ship  of  war,  however  con- 
structed, is  adapted  to  all  the  exigencies  of  naval  service,  while 
these  steamships  are  certainly  adapted  to  some  of  them.  Com- 
modore Perry,  on  the  15th  of  February,  1852,  reports  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  ISTavy  that  "  these  steamships  (of  the  Collins  line)  may 
be  converted,  at  an  expense  of  $20,000  each,  into  war-steamers  of 
the  first  class ;  and  that  each  of  them  could  carry  four  10-inch 
Paixhan  guns  on  pivots,  fore  and  aft,  of  the  weight  of  those  in  the 
model  ship  Mississippi,  and  ten  8-inch  Paixhan  guns  on  the  sides, 
and  that  this  armament  would  not  incommode  the  vessel ;  and 
that,  in  the  general  operations  of  a  maritime  war,  they  would 
render  good  service ;  and  especially  that,  from  their  great  speed, 
they  would  be  useful  as  dispatch  vessels,  and  for  the  transportation 
of  troops,  being  always  capable  of  attack  and  defence^  and  over- 
hauling and  escaping  from  an  enemy." 

The  Secretary  of  "War  reports  to  the  Senate,  on  the  20th  of 
March,  1852,  that  "  the  readiness  of  the  steamers  to  be  used  at  the 
shortest  notice,  their  capacity  of  being  used  as  transports  for  goods 
and  munitions  of  war,  and  their  great  celerity  of  motion,  enabling 
them  to  overhaul  merchantmen,  and  at  the  same  time  escape 
cruisers,  would  render  them  terrible  as  guerrillas  of  the  ocean.". 

Thirdly.  Great  Britain  has  already  more  than  two  hundred  and 
fifty  steamers,  armed  and  capable  of  armament.  •  What  would  be 
our  situation,  in  the  emergency  of  a  war,  if  we  were  unprovided 
with  a  similar  force  for  defence  and  aggression  ? 

~B\\t,  fourthly.  The  warlike  adaptation  of  the  steamers  is  a  col- 
lateral and  contingent  feature  of  the  enterprise,  which  will  stand 


230  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

safely  on  the  accomplishment  of  its  postal  and  mercantile  ends, 
even  if  that  feature  should  prove  useless.  These  steamers,  at 
least,  are  built  and  in  use,  and  accomplish  their  important  civic 
purposes.  "We  may  correct  our  system,  not  in  this,  but  in  future 
operations. 

Thus,  Mr.  President,  it  appears  that  the  enterprise  was  wisely 
adopted.  And  now,  I  pray  you,  take  notice  that  it  has  not  been 
rendered  unwise  or  impracticable  by  any  change  of  circumstances 
or  of  public  interests.  Every  thing  in  these  respects  remains  as  it 
was,  except  that  we  have  increased  ability  and  increased  need  to 
put  it  forth  in  the  struggle  for  the  freedom  of  commerce  and  the 
command  of  the  seas. 

N"or  does  the  expense  complained  of  affect  the  question  of  per- 
severance. The  excess  of  expense  above  the  estimates,  results 
from  the  wise  policy  of  building  larger  and  better  ships  than  were 
at  first  contemplated,  whereby  in  achievement  we  have  not  merely 
equalled  but  surpassed  Great  Britain. 

!Nor  is  the  expense  of  the  American  steamers  disproportionate 
to  that  of  the  British.  Although  we  all  know  that  for  a  time  it 
might  well  be  so,  because  the  rate  of  interest,  and  the  cost  of 
labor  and  of  skill,  are  higher  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  than  on 
the  other,  and  because  higher  insurance  must  be  paid  on  more 
valuable  vessels.  Nevertheless,  the  Cunard  steamers,  seven  in 
number,  have  an  aggregate  capacity  of  12,252  tons,  averaging 
1,750  tons  for  each,  and  they  cross  the  Atlantic  eighty-five  times 
annually;  thus  the  whole  tonnage  worked  by  them  across  the 
Atlantic  is  148,750  tons. 

The  Collins  steamers  have  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  13,700, 
averaging  3,425  tons  for  each  ;  and  the  aggregate  tonnage  worked 
by  them  across  the  ocean  is  178,100  tons ;  the  cost  to  the  govern- 
ment is  $850,000,  not  exceeding,  in  proportion  to  their  work,  the 
expense  of  the  Cunard  line.  At  the  same  time,  they  excel  the 
Cunard  steamers  in  speed.  The  shortest  westward  passage  of  the 
Cunard  steamers  was  ten  days  and  twenty-two  hours,  and  the 
shortest  eastward  passage  ten  days  and  twelve  hours ;  while  the 
quickest  westward  passage  of  the  Collins  steamers  was  nine  days 
and  twelve  hours,  and  the  quickest  eastward  passage  was  nine 
davs  and  eight  hours. 

*  O 

Nor  is  the  expense  disproportioned  to  the  benefits  received. 
The  first  effect  of  the  enterprise  was  a  postal  treaty  with  Great 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  231 

Britain ;  and  under  that  treaty,  in  lieu  of  receiving  no  steam 
ocean  postages,  as  before,  we  now  receive  postages  amounting  in 
round  numbers  to  $400,000 ;  and  this  revenue  must  swell,  and  is 
actually  swelling  at  the  rate  of  $200,000  annually.  Thus,  in  the 
first  place,  it  is  clear  that  in  two  years  the  postal  revenue  alone 
will  defray  the  expense  ;  'and,  secondly,  there  lies  very  near  to  us 
in  the  future,  what  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  SUMKEK] 
so  justly  denominates,  and  what  every  patriot  and  philanthropist 
so  earnestly  seeks,  the  great  boon  of  cheap  ocean  postage. 

And  now,  while  we  maintain  postal  communication  to  every 
part  of  our  country,  at  no  matter  how  great  expense,  provided 
that  the  revenue  of  the  whole  system  shall  equal  the  cost  of  all 
its  parts,  I  desire  to  know  why  we  should  depart  from  a  principle 
so  enlightened  in  foreign  postal  conventions,  which  are  ancillary 
to  commerce,  to  immigration,  and  to  political  influence  and  power. 
But  if  we  change  the  terms  of  the  question,  it  will  be  more  easily 
solved.  What,  then,  shall  we  lose  by  arresting  the  enterprise  ? 
We  shall  lose  all  the  postages  on  steam  mails,  and  all  the  hopes 
of  cheap  postage,  and  all  the  profits  on  passengers  and  freight 
transported  by  steam.  It  is  not  easy  to  estimate  these  losses  ;  but 
we  have  some  knowledge  of  the  profits  of  Great  Britain,  arising 
from  the  monopoly  she  enjoyed  before  our  competition.  The 
duties  received  into  the  treasury  from  the  Cunard  steamers  rose 
in  six  years  from  $73,809  to  $1,054,731.  She  paid  the  steamers 
for  carrying  the  mails  six  years  $2,550,000,  and  received  postages 
in  return  amounting  at  $7,836,800 ;  giving  her  a  clear  profit,  on 
the  postal  revenue,  of  $5,286,800,  or  a  little  less  than  a  million  a 
year.  We  have  gained  at  least  one-half  of  what  benefits  Great 
Britain  has  lost  by  reason  of  our  enterprise.  Let  that  monopoly 
be  restored  and  re-established,  we  shall  then  lose  all  that  gain,  and 
with  it  we  shall  see  the  postages,  and  freights,  and  rates  of  passage, 
raised  to  their  ancient  standards,  and  continually  adjusted  equally 
to  injure  our  prosperity  and  promote  the  interests  and  gratify  the 
caprice  of  Great  Britain.  What  shall  we  then  look  for  but  decline 
of  trade  and  industry,  with  a  long  train  of  commercial  embarrass- 
ments and  national  humiliations  ? 

At  most,  we  can  save  by  abandoning  this  enterprise  only  about 
$300,000  in  two  years.  Could  we  not  more  easily  retrench  to  that 
extent  in  some  other  quarter  ?  We  can  save  as  much,  and  more, 
by  laying  up  one  of  our  frigates  in  ordinary  during  the  same  time, 


232  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  twice  as  much  by  burning  it  down  to  the  water's  edge.  No 
one  would  advise  this,  and  yet  it  would  be  far  less  disastrous  than 
the  retrenchment  now  proposed. 

Still,  sir,  the  argument  that  the  expense  exceeds  the  estimates 
is  pressed.  "Well,  there  is  nothing  new  in  that.  This  is  a  defi- 
ciency bill.  It  makes  appropriations  of  some  millions  to  supply 
deficiencies  in  the  customs  service,  in  the  construction  of  public 
edifices,  in  the  improvement  and  embellishment  of  the  capital,  in 
the  department  of  Indian  Affairs,  in  the  department  of  the  Terri- 
tories, and  in  the  department  of  Foreign  Relations.  And  just  such 
a  deficiency  bill  comes  up  from  the  House  of  Representatives,  at 
the  middle  of  every  session  of  Congress,  as  punctually  as  the  esti- 
mates for  the  year  come  in  at  the  beginning,  and  as  the  appropri- 
ation bill,  based  on  these  estimates,  appears  at  the  close.  Shall 
we,  then,  abandon  the  customs,  the  public  edifices,  the  seat  of 
government,  the  army  and  navy,  the  Indian  tribes,  the  territories, 
and  all  foreign  intercourse,  because  we  can  never  estimate  accu- 
rately, at  the  beginning,  the  cost  of  maintaining  them  throughout 
the  fiscal  year  ? 

But  it  is  said  that  the  enterprise  is  a  departure  from  the  princi- 
ple of  free  trade.  Sir,  it  is  a  departure  from  that  principle,  but 
not  a  divergence  from  the  fixed  and  ancient  policy  of  the  country. 
Widely,  and  I  think  unwisely,  as  we  have  differed  among  our- 
selves about  the  policy  of  protecting  agriculture  and  manufactures, 
to  the  hindrance  of  the  growth  of  commerce  itself,  yet  we  have, 
from  first  to  last,  uncompromisingly  and  unwaveringly  adhered  to 
the  policy  of  protecting  navigation.  "We  inherited  it  from  Eng- 
land, whose  navigation  act,  passed  by  the  Long  Parliament,  and 
co-operating  with  her  encouragement  of  manufactures,  broke  the 
monopoly  of  Holland,  and  secured  to  the  British  Islands  the  com- 
merce of  the  world  and  the  command  of  the  ocean.  If  this 
measure  enhances  protection  of  our  navigation,  it  is  because 
British  largesses  enhance  the  protection  of  her  navigation.  Let 
her  revert  to  her  old  measure  of  protection,  and  we  can  at  once 
safely  return  to  ours. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Virginia  tells  us  that  it  is  wise  to 
give  up  now,  because,  the  system  being  unprofitable,  we  shall  be 
obliged  to  give  up  at  last.  But  this  is  only  a  temporary  con- 
test, not  yet  fully  decided,  and  growing  in  success.  Collins's  con- 
tract has  eight  years  to  run.  Long  before  that  time,  Atlantic 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  233 

steam  navigation  will  prove  itself  to  be  either  self-sustaining  or 
not  self-sustaining.  In  either  case,  Great  Britain  will  withdraw 
her  patronage  from  her  line,  and  we  can  then  safely  discontinue 
our  contributions  to  our  line. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Yirginia  seeks  to  divide  us  on  this 
question,  by  presenting  the  claims  of  what  he  calls  the  poorer 
cities  for  a  share  in  the  benefits  of  this  policy,  now  concentrated 
upon  New  York.  I  learn  that  a  bill  is  near  its  third  reading  in 
the  Legislature  of  the  Old  Dominion,  having  for  its  object  to  estab- 
lish a  line  of  first-class  steamships  between  Norfolk  and  Antwerp. 
Sir,  I  assure  the  honorable  senator  that  when  a  proposition  shall 
come  before  us  for  material  aid  to  the  trade  of  any  of  our  Atlantic 
cities,  which  shall  at  the  same  time  be  beneficent  to  the  whole 
Union — whether  that  city  be  Boston,  or  Philadelphia,  or  Balti- 
more, or  Norfolk,  or  Charleston,  or  New  Orleans — I  shall  greet  it 
with  no  reluctant  hearing.  But  in  the  mean  time  the  field  of  bat- 
tle is  chosen,  not  by  us,  but  by  the  enemy ;  it  is  not  a  provincial 
contest  for  provincial  objects,  but  it  is  a  national  one.  We  must 
meet  our  adversary  on  that  field,  not  elsewhere ;  and  we  must 
meet  her,  or  surrender  the  whole  nation's  cause  without  a  blow. 

And  now  I  pray  honorable  senators  to  consider  what  it  is  that 
we  are  invited  to  surrender.  It  is  no  less  than  the  proud  com- 
mercial and  political  position  we  have  gained  by  two  wars  with  ,' 
Great  Britain,  and  by  the  vigorous  and  well-directed  enterprise  of 
our  countrymen  through  a  period  now  reaching  to  three-quarters 
of  a  century. 

Next,  I  pray  you  to  consider  what  position  we  must  take  after 
that  surrender — the  position  of  Mexico,  of  the  Canadas,  and  of  the 
South  American  states.  Surely  there  is  nothing  attractive  in  such 
a  change,  in  such  a  descent. 

I  conjure  you  to  consider,  moreover,  that  England,  without 
waiting  for,  and,  I  am  sure,  without  expecting,  so  inglorious  a  re- 
treat on  our  part,  is  completing  a  vast  web  of  ocean  steam  navi- 
gation, based  on  postage  and  commerce,  that  will  connect  all  the 
European  ports,  all  our  own  ports,  all  the  South  American  ports, 
all  the  ports  in  the  West  Indies,  all  the  ports  of  Asia  and  Oceanica, 
with  her  great  commercial  capital.  Thus  the  world  is  to  become 
a  great  commercial  system,  ramified  by  a  thousand  nerves  pro-  / 
jecting  from  the  one  head  at  London.  Yet,  stupendous  as  the 
scheme  is,  our  own  merchants,  conscious  of  equal  capacity  and 


234  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

equal  resources,  and  relying  on  experience  for  success,  stand  here 
beseeching  us  to  allow  them  to  counteract  its  fulfilment,  and  ask 
of  us  facilities  and  aid  equal  to  those  yielded  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  its  citizens.  "While  our  commercial  history  is  full  of 
presages  of  a  successful  competition,  Great  Britain  is  sunk  deep 
in  debt.  We  are  free  from  debt.  Great  Britain  is  oppressed  with 
armies  and  costly  aristocratic  institutions ;  industry  among  us  is 
unfettered  and  free.  But  it  is  a  contest  depending  not  on  armies, 
nor  even  on  wealth,  but  chiefly  on  invention  and  industry.  And 
how  stands  the  national  account  in  those  respects  ?  The  cotton- 
gin,  the  planing-machine,  steam  navigation,  and  electrical  commu- 
nication— these  are  old  achievements.  England  only  a  year  ago 
invited  the  nations  to  bring  their  inventions  and  compare  them 
together  in  a  palace  of  iron  and  glass.  In  all  the  devices  for  the 
increase  of  luxury  and  indulgence,  America  was  surpassed,  not 
only  by  refined  England  and  by  chivalrous  France,  but  even  by 
semi-barbarian  Russia.  Not  until  after  all  the  mortification  which 
such  a  result  necessarily  produced,  did  the  comparison  of  utilita- 
rian inventions  begin.  Then  our  countrymen  exhibited  Dick's 
Anti-friction  Press — a  machine  that  moved  a  power  greater  by 
240  tons  than  could  be  raised  by  the  Brama  Hydraulic  Press, 
which,  having  been  used  by  Sir  John  Stevenson  in  erecting  the 
tubular  bridge  over  the  Straits  of  JMenai,  had  been  brought  for- 
ward by  the  British  artisans  as  a  contrivance  of  unrivalled  merit 
for  the  generation  of  direct  power.  Next  was  submitted,  on  our 
behalf,  the  two  inventions  of  St.  John,  the  Variation  Compass, 
which  indicates  the  deflection  of  its  own  needle  at  any  place,  re- 
sulting from  local  causes ;  and  the  Veloeimeter,  which  tells,  at  any 
time,  the  actual  speed  of  the  vessel  bearing  it,  and  its  distance 
from  the  port  of  departure — inventions  adopted  at  once  by  the 
Admiralty  of  Great  Britain.  Then,  to  say  nothing  of  the  ingeni- 
ously-constructed locks  exhibited  by  Hobbs,  which  defied  the  skill 
of  the  British  artisans,  while  he  opened  all  of  theirs  at  pleasure, 
there  was  Bigelow's  Power-loom,  which  has  brought  down  ingrain 
and  Brussels  carpets  within  the  reach  of  the  British  mechanic  and 
farmer.  While  the  American  Plows  took  precedence  of  all  others, 
McCormick's  Reaper  was  acknowledged  to  be  a  contribution  to 
the  agriculture  of  England,  surpassing  in  value  the  cost  of  the 
Crystal  Palace.  Nor  were  we  dishonored  in  the  Fine  Arts,  for  a 
well-deserved  meed  was  awarded  to  Hughes  for  his  successful  in- 


AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION.  235 

corporation  in  marble  of  the  ideal  of  Oliver  Twist ;  and  the  palin 
was  conferred  on  Powers  for  his  immortal  statue  of  the  Greek 
Slave.  "When  these  successes  had  turned  away  the  tide  of  deri- 
sion from  our  country,  the  yacht  America  entered  the  Thames. 
Skillful  architects  saw  that  she  combined,  in  before  unknown  pro- 
portions, the  elements  of  grace  and  motion,  and  her  modest  chal- 
lenge was  reluctantly  accepted,  and  even  then  only  for  a  tenth 
part  of  the  prize  she  proposed.  The  trial  was  graced  by  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Queen  and  her  Court,  and  watched  with  an  interest 
created  by  national  pride  and  ambition,  and  yet  the  triumph  was 
complete. 

In  the  very  hour  of  this,  of  itself,  conclusive  demonstration  of 
American  superiority  in  utilitarian  inventions,  and  in  the  art  "  that 
leads  to  nautical  dominion,"  a  further  and  irresistible  confirmation 
was  given  by  the  arrival  of  American  clippers  from  India,  freighted 
at  advanced  rates  with  shipments,  consigned  by  the  agents  of  the 
East  India  Company  at  Calcutta  to  their  own  warehouses  in  Lon- 
don. Such  and  so  recent  are  the  proofs,  that  in  the  capital  ele- 
ment of  invention  we  are  equal  to  the  contest  for  the  supremacy 
of  the  seas.  When  I  consider  them,  and  consider  our  resources, 
of  which  those  of  Pennsylvania,  or  of  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi, 
or  of  California,  alone  exceed  the  entire  native  wealth  of  Great 
Britain  ;  when  I  consider,  moreover,  our  yet  nnelicited  manufac- 
turing capacity — our  great  population,  already  nearly  equal  to 
that  of  the  British  Islands,  and  multiplying  at  a  rate  unknown  in 
human  progress  by  accessions  from  both  of  the  old  continents ; 
when  I  consider  the  advantages  of  our  geographical  position,  mid- 
way between  them ;  and  when  I  consider,  above  all,  the  expand- 
ing and  elevating  influence  of  freedom  upon  the  genius  of  our 
people,  I  feel  quite  assured  that  their  enterprise  will  be  adequate 
to  the  glorious  conflict,  if  it  shall  be  only  sustained  by  constancy 
and  perseverance  on  the  part  of  their  government.  I  do  not  know 
that  we  shall  prevail  in  that  conflict ;  but  for  myself,  like  the 
modest  hero  who  was  instructed  to  charge  on  the  artillery  at 
Niagara,  I  can  say  that  we  "  will  try ;"  and  that  when  a  difficulty 
occurs  no  greater  than  that  which  meets  us  now,  my  motto  shall 
be  the  words  of  the  dying  commander  of  the  Chesapeake — "  Don't 
give  up  the  ship." 


236  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


SUKYEY  OF  THE  ARCTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS. 

JULY    29,    1852. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  Some  years  ago,  when  ascending  the  Ala- 
bama, I  saw  a  stag  plunge  into  the  river,  and  gallantly  gain  the 
western  bank,  while  the  desponding  sportsman  whose  rifle  he  had 
escaped,  sat  down  to  mourn  his  ill  luck  under  the  deep  magnolia 
forest  that  shaded  the  eastern  shore.  You,  sir,  are  a  dweller  in 
that  region,  and  are,  as  all  the  world  knows,  a  gentleman  of  cul- 
tivated taste  and  liberal  fortunes.  Perhaps,  then,  you  may  have 
been  that  unfortunate  hunter.  Howsoever  that  may  have  been, 
I  wish  to  converse  with  you  now  of  the  chase,  and  yet  not  of 
deer,  or  hawk,  or  hound,  but  of  a  chase  upon  the  seas  ;  and  still 
not  of  angling  or  trolling,  nor  of  the  busy  toil  of  those  worthy 
fishermen  who  seem  likely  to  embroil  us,  certainly  without  reluct- 
ance on  our  part,  in  a  controversy  about  their  rights  in  the  Bay 
of  Fuiidy ;  but  of  a  nobler  sport,  and  more  adventurous  sports- 
men than  Izaak  Walton,  or  Daniel  Boone,  or  even  Nimrod,  the 
mightiest  as  well  as  most  ancient  of  hunters,  ever  dreamed  of— 
the  chase  of  the  whale  over  his  broad  range  of  the  universal 
ocean. 

Do  not  hastily  pronounce  the  subject  out  of  order  or  unprofit- 
able, or  unworthy  of  this  high  presence.  The  Phoenicians,  the 
earliest  mercantile  nation  known  to  us,  enriched  themselves  by 
selling  the  celebrated  Tyrian  dye,  and  glass  made  of  sand  taken 
from  the  sea  ;  and  they  acquired  not  only  those  sources  of  wealth, 
but  the  art  of  navigation  itself,  in  the  practice  of  their  humble 
calling  as  fishermen.  A  thousand  years  ago,  King  Alfred  was 
laying  the  foundations  of  empire  for  Young  England,  as  we  are 
now  doing  for  Young  America.  The  monarch  whom  men  have 
justly  surnamed  the  Wise  as  well  as  the  Great,  did  not  disdain  to 


THE  WHALE  FISHERIES.  237 

listen  to  Octher,  who  related  the  adventures  of  a  voyage  along 
the  coast  of  Norway,  "  so  far  north  as  commonly  the  whale 
hunters  used  to  travel ;"  nor  was  the  stranger  suffered  to  depart 
until  he  had  submitted  to  the  king  "  a  most  just  survey  and 
description"  of  the  Northern  Seas,  not  only  as  they  extended 
upward  to  the  North  Cape,  but  also  as  they  declined  downward 
along  the  southeast  coast  of  Lapland,  and  so  following  the  icy 
beach  of  Russia  to  where  the  river  Dwina  discharged  its  waters 
into  the  "White  Sea,  or,  as  it  was  then  called,  the  Sea  of  Archangel. 
Perhaps  my  poor  speech  may  end  in  some  similar  lesson.  The 
incident  I  have  related  is  the  burden  of  the  earliest  historical 
notice  of  the  subjugation  of  the  monster  of  the  seas  to  the  uses  of 
man.  The  fishery  was  carried  on  then,  and  near  six  hundred 
years  afterward,  by  the  Basques,  Biscayans,  and  Norwegians,  for 
the  food  yielded  by  the  tongue,  and  the  oil  obtained  from  the  fat 
of  the  animal.  "Whalebone  entered  into  commerce  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  and  at  first  commanded  the  enormous  price  of  seven  hun- 
dred pounds  sterling  per  ton,  exceeding  a  value  in  this  age  of  ten 
thousand  dollars.  Those  wrere  merry  times,  if  not  for  science,  at 
least  for  royalty,  when,  although  the  material  for  stays  and  hoops 
was  taken  from  the  mouth,  the  law  appropriated  the  tail  of  every 
whale  taken  by  an  English  subject  to  the  use  of  the  queen,  for  the 
supply  of  the  royal  wardrobe. 

In  I486,  the  Portuguese  reached  the  Cape  of  Storms,  and,  in 
happy  augury  of  an  ultimate  passage  to  India,  changed  its  ill- 
omened  name  to  that  of  "  Good  Hope ;"  and  immediately  there- 
after the  northern  states  of  Europe,  especially  England  and  Hol- 
land, began  that  series  of  voyages,  not  even  yet  ended,  in  search 
of  a  passage  to  the  East  through  the  floating  fields  and  mountains 
of  ice  in  the  Arctic  Ocean.  The  unsuccessful  search  disclosed  the 
refuge  of  the  whales  in  the  bays  and  creeks  of  Spitzbergen.  In 
15Y5,  a  London  merchant  wrote  to  a  foreign  correspondent  for 
advice  and  direction  as  to  the  course  of  killing  the  whale,  and 
received  instructions  how  to  build  and  equip  a  vessel  of  two  hun- 
dred tons,  and  to  man  it  exclusively  with  experienced  whale 
hunters  of  Biscay.  The  attraction  of  dominion  was  stronger  in 
that  age  than  the  lust  of  profit.  The  English  now  claimed  Spitz- 
bergen, and  all  its  surrounding  ice  and  waters,  by  discovery.  The 
Dutch,  with  truth,  alleged  an  earlier  exploration,  while  the  Danes 
claimed  the  whole  region  as  a  part  of  Greenland — a  pretension 
VOL.  1—16. 


238  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

that  could  not  then  be  disproved ;  and  all  these  parties  sent  armed 
forces  upon  the  fishing  ground,  less  to  protect  their  few  fisher- 
men, than  to  establish  exclusive  rights  there.  After  some  fifty 
years,  these  nations  discovered,  first,  that  it  was  absurd  to  claim 
jurisdiction  where  no  permanent  possession  could  ever  be  estab 
lished,  by  reason  of  the  rigors  of  climate ;  and  secondly,  that  there 
were  fish  enough  and  room  enough  for  all  competitors.  Thence- 
forward, the  whale  fishery  in  the  Arctic  Ocean  has  been  free  to 
all  nations. 

The  Dutch  perfected  the  harpoon,  the  reel,  the  line,  and  the 
spear,  as  well  as  the  art  of  using  them.  And  they  established, 
also,  the  system  which  we  have  since  found  indispensable,  of 
rewarding  all  the  oflacers  and  crews  employed  in  the  fishery,  not 
with  direct  wages  or  salaries,  but  with  shares  in  the  spoils  of  the 
game,  proportioned  to  skill  and  experience.  Combining  with 
these  the  advantages  of  favorable  position,  and  of  frugality  and 
perseverance  quite  proverbial,  the  Dutch  even  founded  a  fishing 
settlement  called  Smeerenburgh,  on  the  coast  of  Spitzbergen, 
within  eleven  degrees  of  the  North  Pole,  and  they  took  whales  in 
its  vicinity  in  such  abundance  that  ships  were  needed  to  go  out  in 
ballast  to  carry  home  the  surplus  oil  and  bone  above  the  capacity 
of  the  whaling  vessels.  The  whales,  thus  vigorously  attacked, 
again  changed  their  lurking  place.  Spitzbergen  was  abandoned 
by  the  fishermen,  and  the  very  site  of  Smeerenburgh  is  now 
unknown.  In  the  year  1496,  Sebastian  Cabot,  in  the  spirit  of 
that  age,  seeking  a  north-western  passage  to  the  Indies,  gave  to 
the  world  the  discovery  of  Prirna  Yista,  or,  as  we  call  it,  New- 
foundland,  and  the  Basques,  Biscayans,  Dutch  and  English,  imme- 
diately thereafter  commenced  the  chase  for  whales  in  the  waters 
surrounding  it. 

Scarcely  had  the  colonists  of  Massachusetts  planted  themselves 
at  Plymouth,  before  the  sterility  of  the  soil  and  the  rigor  of  the 
climate  forced  them  to  resort  to  the  sea  to  eke  out  their  subsist- 
ence. Pursuing  the  whales  out  from  their  own  bays,  in  vessels 
of  only  forty  tons  burden,  they  appeared  on  the  fishing  ground 
off  Newfoundland  in  the  year  1690.  Profiting  by  nearness  of 
position  and  economy  in  building  and  equipping  ships,  and  sharing 
alsoT^  the  bounties  with  which  England  was  then  stimulating  the 
whale  fishery,  they  soon  excelled  all  their  rivals  on  the  Newfound- 
land waters,  as  well  as  in  Bafiin's  Bay  and  off  the  coast  of  Green- 


ARCTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS.  239 

land.     Thus  encouraged,  they  ran  down  the  coasts  of  America  and 
Africa,  and  in  the  waters  rolling  between  them  they  discovered 
the  black  whale,  a  new  and  inferior  species,  yet  worthy  of  cap- 
ture ;  and  then  stretching  off  toward  the  South  Pole,  they  found 
still  another  species,  the  sperm  whale,  whose  oil  is  still  preferred 
above  all  other ;  and  thus  they  enlarged  the  whale  fishery  for 
the  benefit  of  the  world,  which  since  that  time  has  distinguished 
the  two  branches  of  that  enterprise  geographically  by  the  desig- 
nation of  the  Northern  and  Southern  .fisheries.      In  1775,   the 
fisheries  were  carried   on   by  the   Americans,  the  English,  the 
Dutch,  and  the  French.      The   French   employed  only  a  small 
fleet,  the  Dutch  a  larger  one  of  129  sail.    The  English  had  only 
96  ships,  wrhile  the  Americans  had  132  vessels  in  the  Southern 
fishery,  and  177  in  the  Northern  fishery,  manned  with  4,000  per- 
sons, and  bringing  in  oil  and  whalebone  of  the  value  of  $1,111,000. 
This  precociousness  of  American  nautical  enterprise  elicited  from 
Burke,  in  his  great  speech  for  conciliation  to  the  colonies,  a  tribute 
familiar  to  our  countrymen,  and  perhaps  the  most  glowing  pas- 
sage that  even  that  great  orator  ever  wrote  or  spoke  :  "  Look  at 
the  manner  in  which  the  people  of  New  England  have  of  late 
carried  on  the  whale  fishery.     "While  we  follow  them  among  the 
tumbling  mountains  of  ice,  and  behold  them  penetrating  into  the 
deepest  recesses  of  Hudson's  Bay  and  Davis's  Straits,  while  we 
are  looking  for  them   beneath   the  Arctic  circle,  we  hear  that 
they  have  pierced  into  the  opposite  region  of  Polar  cold — that 
they  are  at  the  Antipodes,  and  engaged  under  the  frozen  serpent 
of  the  South.     Falkland  Island,  which  seemed  too  remote  and 
romantic  an  object  for  the  grasp  of  national  ambition,  is  but  a 
stage  and  resting-place  in  the  progress  of  their  victorious  indus- 
try.    Nor  is  the  equatorial  heat  more  discouraging  to  them  than 
the  accumulated  winter  of  both  the  poles.     We  know  that  while 
some  of  them  draw  the  line  and  strike  the  harpoon  on  the  coast 
of  Africa,  others  run  the  longitude,  and  pursue  their  gigantic 
game  along  the  coast  of  Brazil.     No  ocean  but  what  is  vexed 
with  their  fisheries,  no  climate  that  is  not  witness  to  their  toils. 
Neither  the  perseverance  of  Holland,,  nor  the  activity  of  France, 
nor  the  dexterous  and  firm  sagacity  of  English  enterprise,  ever 
carried  this  perilous  mode  of  hardy  enterprise  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  has  been  pushed  by  this  recent  people — a  people  who 


240  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

are  still,  as  it  were,  in  the  gristle,  and  not  yet  hardened  into  the 
bone  of  manhood." 

But  Britain  did  not  conciliate.  The  Revolution  went  on,  and 
the  American  whale  fishery  perished,  leaving  not  one  vessel  on 
either  fishing  ground. 

Yet  it  is  curious,  Mr.  President,  to  mark  the  elasticity  of  our 
countrymen  in  this  their  favorite  enterprise.  A  provisional  treaty 
of  peace  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  was  con- 
cluded on  the  30th  of  November,  1782.  "  On  the  3d  of  February, 
1783,"  (I  read  from  an  English  paper  of  that  period,)  "  the  ship 
Bedford,  Captain  Moores,  belonging  to  Massachusetts,  arrived  in 
the  Downs.  She  passed  Gravesend  on  the  4th,  and  on  the  6th 
was  reported  at  the  custom-house  in  London.  She  was  not  allowed 
regular  entry  until  after  some  consultation  between  the  commis- 
sioners of  customs  and  the  Lords  of  the  Council,  on  account  of 
the  many  acts  of  Parliament  yet  in  force  against  the  rebels  of 
America.  She  was  loaded  with  587  barrels  of  whale  oil,  and 
manned  wholly  with  American  seamen,  and  belonged  to  the  island 
of  Nantucket.  The  vessel  lay  at  the  Horsley-Downs,  a  little  be- 
low the  Tower,  and  was  the  first  which  displayed  the  thirteen 
stripes  of  America  in  any  British  port." 

Nevertheless,  the  lost  vantage  ground  was  not  easily  nor  speedily 
regained.  The  effort  was  made  without  protection,  against  ex- 
clusion in  foreign  markets,  and  against  bounties  by  the  English 
government,  equivalent  to  forty  dollars  per  man  employed,  or 
sixty  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  every  cargo  obtained — bounties  not 
occasionally  nor  irregularly  offered,  but  continued  from  1750  to 
1824,  and  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  three  millions  of  pounds 
sterling.  Nor  was  this  all.  These  bounties,  enhanced  with  addi- 
tional inducements,  were  offered  to  the  Nantucket  fishermen,  on 
condition  of  their  abandoning  their  country  and  becoming  inhabit- 
ants of  the  adjacent  British  colonies,  or  of  the  British  islands.  It 
seemed,  indeed,  that  a  crisis  in  this  great  national  interest  had 
come.  Happily  there  was,  on  the  French  side  of  the  Channel,  at 
least,  one  unwearied  friend  of  America,  as  there  were  many  watch- 
ful enemies  of  England.  Lafayette  wrote  several  letters  to  Boston, 
and  arrested  an  immigration  from  Nantucket  to  the  British  col- 
onies and  islands  already  on  the  eve  of  embarkation,  and  then 
addressed  himself  to  the  French  monarch  and  his  court.  France 
saw  at  once  the  dangers  of  a  transfer  of  so  great  a  number  of  sea- 


THE  WHALE   FISHERIES.  241 

men,  together  with  the  very  secret,  art  and  mystery  of  whale 
hunting,  to  her  hereditary  and  relentless  enemy.  The  good  but 
ill-fated  Louis  XYI.  equipped  six  whaling  vessels,  with  American 
harpooners,  on  his  own  account,  and  offered  a  bounty  of  nine  dol- 
lars per  man,  payable  by  the  royal  treasury,  to  every  American 
fisherman  who  should  emigrate  to  France.  In  a  whole  year,  only 
nine  families,  containing  thirty-three  persons,  accepted  this  offer  ; 
and  therefore  the  king,  in  compliance  with  Lafayette's  first  ad- 
vice, adopted  the  expedient  of  discriminating  in  favor  of  American 
cargoes  of  oil  and  whalebone  in  the  French  market.  The  Ame- 
rican whale  fishery  began  to  revive,  and  in  1787,  1788,  and  1789, 
it  employed  an  average  of  122  vessels.  But  it  still  labored  under 
the  pressure  of  competition,  stimulated  by  bounties  both  in  Eng- 
land and  in  France.  In  1790,  the  Great  and  General  Council  of 
Massachusetts  appealed  to  Congress  for  protection  to  this  great 
interest  of  that  commonwealth.  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  Secretary  of 
State,  submitted  an  elaborate  reply,  which,  while  it  was  liberal  in 
its  spirit,  nevertheless  closed  with  the  declaration,  that  "  the  whale 
fishery  was  a  branch  of  industry  so  poor  as  to  come  to  nothing 
with  distant  nations  who  did  not  support  it  from  their  treasuries — 
that  our  position  placed  our  fishing  on  ground  somewhat  higher, 
such  as  to  relieve  the  national  treasury  from  giving  it  support, 
but  not  to  permit  it  to  derive  support  from  the  fishery,  nor  to  re- 
lieve the  Government  from  the  obligation  to  provide  free  markets 
for  the  productions  of  the  fishery,  if  possible." 

The  enterprise  had  not  yet  languished  into  life,  when  the  French 
revolution  of  1789  occurred,  which  involved  Europe,  and  ulti- 
mately the  United  States,  in  wars  that  swept  the  latter,  as  well  as 
the  French  and  Dutch,  from  all  the  fisheries,  and  left  them  in  the 
exclusive  enjoyment  of  Britain,  who  achieved  in  those  wars  her 
now  established  pre-eminence  as  the  conqueror  of  the  seas.  At 
their  close,  the  British  had  146  vessels  in  the  Northern  whaling 
ground,  which  captured  no  less  than  733  whales,  and  thus  obtained 
13,590  tons  of  oil  and  438  tons  of  whalebone ;  and  fifty-six  ships 
in  the  Southern  whale  fishery  equally  successful.  The  Americans 
now  re-entered  the  game,  and  the  tables  were  speedily — and,  as 
we  think,  permanently — turned  in  their  favor.  In  1824,  the  Brit- 
ish became  discouraged,  and  withdrew  their  bounties ;  and  in  1842, 
they  had  no  more  than  18  vessels  in  the  North  fishery,  which  cap- 
tured only  24  whales.  The  Southern  fishery  declined  still  more 


242  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

rapidly ;  so  that,  in  1845,  not  one  British  whaler  appeared  in  the 
South  seas.  Since  that  time,  all  nations  have  virtually  abandoned 
this  "  hardy  form  of  perilous  enterprise  "  in  favor  of  the  Ameri- 
cans. The  entire  whaling  fleet  of  the  world,  in  1847,  consisted  of 
about  900  vessels,  40  of  which  belonged  to  France,  20  to  Bremen 
and  other  ports  in  Northern  Europe,  20  to  New  Holland  and  other 
British  Polynesian  colonies,  and  all  others,  more  than  800  in 
number,  with  a  tonnage  of  240,000  tons,  belonged  to  the  United 
States.  The  capital  thus  employed  exceeded  twenty  millions  of 
dollars,  and  the  annual  productions  of  the  fisheries  amounted  to 
thirteen  millions  of  dollars.  With  the  decline  of  this  enterprise 
in  Great  Britain,  her  commercial  -writers  began  to  discountenance 
whale  fishing  altogether;  and  while  they  now  represent  it  as  a 
mere  gambling  adventure,  they  endeavor  to  stimulate  the  people 
of  continental  Europe  to  substitute  vegetable  oils  for  those  pro- 
cured in  the  seas. 

Mr.  President,  pray,  consider  the  cost,  time,  dangers,  and  hazard 
of  the  whale  fishery.  Each  vessel  with  its  outfit  is  worth  $30,000, 
and  carries  thirty  able-bodied  seamen,  and  is  afloat  on  a  single 
voyage  one  or  two,  perhaps  three  years.  It  finds  the  whale  no- 
where below  the  sixtieth  degree  of  latitude,  and  can  remain  there 
only  during  the  brief  Polar  summer  of  three  months.  The  whole 
time  may  elapse  without  a  whale  being  seen.  When  discovered, 
every  stage  of  his  capture  is  toilsome,  and  attended  with  multi- 
plied dangers  to  the  assailants,  increased  by  the  shoals,  the  ice, 
the  storms,  and  the  fogs,  which  protect  the  animal  against  his 
pursuers.  The  statistics  are  absolutely  frightful  to  a  landsman  or 
a  common  seaman.  In  1819,  of  sixty-three  British  ships  sent  to 
Davis's  Straits,  ten  were  lost.  In  1821,  out  of  sixty-nine,  eleven 
were  lost.  Of  eighty-seven  ships  that  sailed  for  Davis's  Straits  in 
1830,  no  less  than  eighteen  were  lost,  twenty-four  returned  clean, 
while  not  one  of  the  remainder  had  a  full  cargo,  and  only  one  or 
two  half  fished. 

Pray,  consider  now,  sir,  that  the  great  triumph  of  the  American 
fishermen  was  achieved,  and  is  still  sustained,  not  only  without  aid 
from  the  Government,  but  practically  also  without  aid  from  the 
capital  or  enterprise  of  general  commerce,  and,  indeed,  to  quote 
the  nervous  language  of  Jefferson,  "  with  no  auxiliaries  but  poverty 
and  rigorous  economy."  The  whaling  fleet  of  the  United  States, 
in  1846,  consisted  of  seven  hundred  and  thirty-seven  vessels.  Of 


ARCTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS.  24:3 

the  thirty  states,  only  five,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts  and  New  York,  were  represented  ;  and  all 
of  them,  except  New  York,  are  the  states  least  blessed  in  fertility 
and  climate.  New  Hampshire,  having  only  a  single  port,  sent 
out  only  one  vessel.  Rhode  Island,  one  of  the  three  most  diminu- 
tive states,  equipped  fifty-two.  Connecticut,  a  small  state,  sent 
out  one  hundred  and  twenty-four.  New  York,  with  her  extended 
territory,  vast  wealth,  and  stupendous  commercial  establishments, 
sent  only  eighty-five  ;  and  all  the  rest  proceeded  from  that  state, 
inferior  to  many  others  in  extent,  wealth,  and  commerce,  but 
superior  to  them  all  in  intellectual  and  social  development — Mas- 
sachusetts. 

Wealth  does  nothing,  patronage  does  nothing,  while  vigor  does 
everything  for  the  whale  fishery.  In  Great '  Britain,  London 
resigned  it  in  favor  of  those  poor  and  obsolete  towns,  Hull  in  Eng- 
land, and  Peterhead  in  Scotland,  as  soon  as  the  government 
bounties  ceased.  So,  of  the  eighty-five  vessels  which  in  1846  re- 
presented New  York  in  the  fishery,  only  one  went  up  from  the 
port  of  New  York,  the  commercial  capital  of  the  state  and  of  the 
continent,  while  no  less  than  eight  proceeded  from  Cold  Spring,  a 
mere  ocean  cove.  All  the  others  were  sent  forth  from  New  Suf- 
folk, Greenport,  and  Sag  Harbor,  inconsiderable  villages  or  ham- 
lets on  the  outward  coast  of  Long  Island.  Massachusetts  exhibits 
the  same  case.  Boston  finds  more  lucrative  employment  for  her 
capital  in  spindles,  in  railroads,  and  even  in  her  fields  of  ice  and 
quarries  of  granite ;  and  so  leaves  the  profits  and  toils  of  the  whale 
fishery  to  Freetown,  Falmouth,  Sippican,  "VVareham,  Plymouth. 
Holmes'  Hole,  Fall  River,  Provincetown,  Fairhaven,  New  Bed- 
ford, and  Nantucket,  towns  which  but  for  their  pursuit  of  the 
whale  fishery  would  scarcely  have  been  honored  with  designation 
on  the  chart  or  names  in  the  gazetteer.*  Most  wondrous  of  all, 
Nantucket  is  a  sandy  island,  fifteen  miles  long  and  three  miles 
broad,  capable  of  maintaining  by  agriculture  only  one  hundred 
persons,  and  yet  it  was  the  cradle  of  the  whale  fishery ;  and  neither 
any  town  in  America,  nor  in  England,  nor  even  in  France,  has 
ever  successfully  established  or  at  all  maintained  the  whale  fishery 
without  drawing,  not  merely  its  knowledge  of  whale-hunting,  but 
the  officers  and  crews  of  its  vessels,  chiefly  from  that  sandy  shoal 
thus  rising  above  the  surface  of  the  sea. 

*  See  NOTE  at  the  end  of  the  speech. 


244  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Need  I  dwell  here  on  the  whale  fishery  as  a  source  of  national 
wealth,  and  an  element  of  national  force  and  strength  2  The 
number  of  those  who  are  actively  afloat  in  the  pursuit  ranges  from 
15,000  to  20,000,  while  twenty  times  that  greatest  number  of  per- 
sons are  indirectly  engaged  in  the  culture  of  hemp  and  the  manu- 
facture of  cordage,  the  building  of  ships,  furnishing  their  supplies, 
manufacturing  and  preparing  the  oil  and  whalebone,  in  sending 
them  to  market,  and  in  the  various  other  occupations  incidentally 
connected  with  the  trade.  The  wealth  thus  acquired  leaves  all 
the  resources  of  the  country  untouched.  Dr.  Franklin  cheered 
the  fishermen  of  his  day  with  the  apothegm  that  whosoever  took 
a  fish  out  of  the  sea  always  found  a  piece  of  silver  in  his  mouth, 
and  our  experience  has  confirmed  its  truth,  although  it  is  now  re- 
jected by  the  commercial  writers  of  England. 

We  are  the  second  in  rank  among  commercial  nations.  Our 
superiority  over  so  many,  results  from  our  greater  skill  in  ship- 
building, and  our  greater  dexterity  in  navigation,  and  our  greater 
frugality  at  sea.  These  elements  were  developed  in  the  fisheries, 
and  especially  in  the  Northern  fishery.  We  think  that  we  are  in- 
ferior to  no  nation  in  naval  warfare.  The  seamen  who  have  won 
our  brilliant  victories  on  the  ocean  and  on  the  lakes  were  trained 
and  disciplined  in' this  the  severest  of  all  marine  service  ;  and  our 
naval  historians  agree  that  it  constituted  the  elementary  school  of 
all  our  nautical  science.  What,  then,  would  compensate  us  for 
the  loss  or  for  the  decline  of  the  whale  fishery ! 

Mr.  President,  I  have  tried  to  win  the  favor  of  the  Senate 
toward  the  national  whale  fishery  for  a  purpose.  The  whales 
have  found  a  new  retreat  in  the  seas  of  Ochotsk  and  Anadir, 
south  of  Bhering  Straits,  and  in  that  part  of  the  Arctic  Ocean 
lying  north  of  them.  In  1848,  Captain  Eoys,  in  the  whale  ship 
Superior,  passed  through  those  seas  and  through  the  straits, 
braving  the  perils  of  an  unknown  way  and  an  inhospitable  cli- 
mate. He  filled  his  ship  in  a  few  weeks,  and  the  news  of  his 
success  went  abroad.  In  1849,  a  fleet  of  154  sail  went  up  to  this 
new  fishing  ground  ;  in  1850,  a  fleet  of  144  ;  and  in  1851,  a  fleet 
of  145.  The  vessels  are  manned  with  thirty  persons  each  ;  and 
their  value,  including  that  of  the  average  annual  cargoes  procured 
there,  is  equal  to  nine  millions — and  thus  exceeds  by  near  two 
millions  the  highest  annual  import  from  China.  But  these  fleets 
are  beset  by  not  only  such  dangers  of  their  calling  as  customarily 


THE  WHALE  FISHERIES.  245 

occur  on  well-explored  fishing  grounds,  but  also  by  the  multiplied 
dangers  of  shipwreck  resulting  from  the  want  of  accurate  topo- 
graphical knowledge — the  only  charts  of  those  seas  being  imper- 
fect and  unsatisfactory.  While  many  and  deplorable  losses  were 
sustained  by  the  fleets  of  184:9-'50,  we  have  already  information 
of  the  loss  of  eleven  vessels,  one-thirteenth  part  of  the  whole  fleet 
of  1851,  many  of  which  disasters  might  have  been  avoided  had 
there  been  charts  accurately  indicating  the  shoals  and  headlands, 
and  also  places  of  sheltered  anchorage  near  them.  These  facts  are 
represented  to  us  by  the  merchants,  ship-owners,  and  underwriters, 
and  are  confirmed  by  Lieutenant  Maury,  who  presides  in  this  de- 
partment of  science  in  the  navy,  as  wrell  as  in  the  labors  and 
studies  of  the  National  Observatory.  We  want,  then,  not  boun- 
ties nor  protection,  nor  even  an  accurate  survey,  but  simply  an 
exploration  and  reconnoissance  of  those  seas,  which  have  so 
recently  become  the  theatre  of  profitablS  adventure  and  brave 
achievement  by  our  whale  hunters.  This  service  can  be  per- 
formed by  officers  and  crews  now  belonging  to  the  navy,  in  two 
or  three  vessels  which  already  belong  or  may  be  added  to  it,  and 
would  continue  at  most  only  throughout  two  or  three  years.  Hap- 
pily, the  measure  involves  nothing  new,  untried,  or  uncommon. 
To  say  nothing  of  our  recent  search  for  the  lamented  Sir  John 
Franklin,  nor  of  our  great  exploring  expedition  under  Captain 
Wilkes,  we  are  already  engaged  in  triangulating  a  coast  survey  of 
the  Atlantic  shore.  Charts,  light-houses,  and  beacons,  show  the 
pilot  his  way,  not  only  over  that  ocean  and  among  its  islands,  but 
along  all  our  rivers,  and  even  upon  our  inland  lakes.  The  absence 
of  similar  guides  and  beacons  in  the  waters  now  in  question, 
results  from  the  fact,  that  the  Pacific  coast  has  but  recently  fallen 
under  our  sway,  and  Behring's  Straits  and  the  seas  they  connect 
have  not  until  now  been  frequently  navigated  by  the  seamen  of 
any  nation.  Certainly  somebody  must  do  this  service.  But 
who  will?  The  whalers  cannot.  No  foreign  nation  will,  for 
none  is  interested.  The  constitutional  power  and  responsibility 
rest  with  the  Federal  Government,  and  its  means  are  adequate. 

California  is  near  this  fishing  ground.  Her  enterprising  citi- 
zens are  already  engaged  in  this  pursuit,  and  henceforward  the 
whale  hunters  of  Nantucket  must  compete  with  new  rivals,  pos- 
sessing the  advantage  of  nearness  to  the  scenes  of  their  labors. 


246  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

California,  therefore,  joins  Massachusetts  in  this  reasonable  de- 
mand. 

Mr.  President,  the  small  exploring  fleet  thus  proposed  would 
be  obliged  to  quit  the  northern  seas  early  in  September,  and  could 
not  return  to  them  until  the  succeeding  June.  I  propose  that  it 
shall  spend  that  long  season  in  performing  a  service  not  dissimilar 
under  milder  skies,  in  that  part  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  its 
adjoining  seas,  which  is  usually  traversed  by  vessels  sailing  from 
New  York  and  San  Francisco  to  China  and  the  Indies.  Remem- 
ber, sir,  if  you  please,  that  not  only  has  no  Asiatic  prince,  mer- 
chant, or  navigator,  ever  explored  this  one  of  all  the  oceans,  the 
broadest  and  most  crowded  and  crowned  with  islands,  but  that 
they  have  forbidden  that  exploration  by  European  navigators,  who 
have  performed  whatever  has  been  done  at  the  peril,  and  often  at 
the  cost,  of  imprisonment  and  death.  We  have  made  no  accurate 
survey,  for  we  have  only  just  now  arrived  and  taken  our  stand  on 
the  Pacific  coast.  "We  are  new  on  that  ocean — nay,  we  are  only 
as  of  yesterday  upon  this  continent ;  and  yet  maps  and  charts  are 
as  necessary  to  the  seafaring  man  on  that  ocean  as  on  any  other ; 
and  just  as  necessary  on  every  ocean  as  monuments  and  guides 
are  to  him  who  traverses  deserts  of  unimpressible  sand  or  wastes 
of  trackless  snow. 

Lieutenant  Maury  informs  us  that  every  navigator  of  those 
waters  is  painfully  impressed  with  a  sense  of  surrounding  dangers 
— they  exist,  and  yet  the  only  charts  that  have  been  made  fail  to 
indicate  in  what  forms  or  in  what  places  they  will  appear.  So 
imperfect  is  our  topographical  information,  that  a  large  island, 
called  Ousima,  supposed  to  be  thickly  inhabited  and  highly  culti- 
vated, lies  in  the  fair  way  to  China,  and  yet  no  vessel  has  ever 
touched  or  gone  around  it.  It  would  repay  tenfold  the  cost  of 
the  whole  exploration  if  we  should  find  on  that  island  a  good 
harbor  and  a  friendly  people.*  Horsbergh's  charts  of  these  pas- 
sages are  the  best.  But  these  are  of  old  dates,  and  although  they 
have  been  corrected  from  time  to  time,  yet  they  are  very  imper- 
fect. The  shoals  in  the  China  Sea,  the  Sea  of  Japan,  and  the 
Straits  of  Gasper,  are  represented  to  us  by  navigators  as  being 
formed  of  coral,  a  mixture  of  animal  and  vegetable  organization, 
and  therefore  increasing  rapidly  in  magnitude  as  they  approach 

*  Within  the  last  year  the  Memnon,  an  American  ship,  valued  with  her  cargo  at  $500,000, 
was  lost  in  the  Straits  of  Gasper. 


ARCTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS.  247 

near  to  the  surface  of  the  waters.  It  is  particularly  necessary  to 
explore  and  note  the  shoals  and  islands  lying  between  the  coast 
of  Palawan  on  the  China  Sea  and  that  of  Cochin  China,  and  also 
the  shoals  in  the  vicinity  of  West  London,  Prince  of  Wales,  and 
Paulo  Sapata  islands.  The  perils  existing  there  oblige  ships  going 
up  and  coming  down  through  those  seas  against  the  monsoons  to 
beat  at  disadvantage,  while  an  exploration  would  probably  dis- 
close eddies  and  currents  which  would  allow  of  straight  courses 
where  now  no  one  dares  pursue  them.  Clement's  Strait  and  the 
Caramata  Passage  are  filled  with  the  same  dangers.  Again,  the 
great  outlet  from  the  China  Sea  into  the  Pacific  Ocean  by  the 
Bahee,  and  adjacent  passages  between  the  islands  of  Luconia  and 
the  coasts  of  China  and  Formosa,  need  to  be  surveyed,  although 
the  islands  are  generally  well  designated  on  the  maps.  Then  pro- 
ceeding northwardly,  a  regard  to  the  safety  of  the  whaleman 
demands  that  the  islands  between  the  coasts  of  China  and  Japan, 
and  from  them  to  the  Loo  Choo  islands,  and  so  on  to  the  Russian 
possessions,  and  along  them  eastwardly  to  Behring  Straits,  should 
be  surveyed.  The  last  attempt  to  perform  that  duty  was  made 
by  a  small  Russian  fleet,  which  was  captured  and  destroyed,  while 
its  officers  and  crew  were  imprisoned  by  the  Japanese.  Lastly, 
as  we  advance  eastwardly  in  the  very  track  pursued  by  our  whalers 
and  Chinamen,  we  encounter  islands,  and  many  shoals  imperfectly 
defined,  and  especially  the  Bonin  islands ;  while  prudence  requires 
a  careful  reconnoissance  also  of  the  Fox  islands,  which,  although 
lying  somewhat  northwardly  of  the  passage,  might,  if  well  known, 
afford  shelter  in  case  of  inclement  weather.  This  reconnoissance 
in  a  temperate  latitude  is  demanded  by  the  merchants,  under- 
writers, and  navigators,  in  all  our  Atlantic  as  well  as  in  our  two 
principal  Pacific  ports,  and  the  argument  for  it  rests  on  the  same 
foundation  with  that  which  supports  the  proposition  for  the  more 
northwardly  exploration.  Your  mails  and  passengers  of  a  certain 
class  will  be  carried  between  San  Francisco  and  Shanghai  in 
steamships.  Nevertheless,  without  such  a  survey  as  this  bill  pro- 
poses, you  cannot  establish  a  coaling  station  on  the  way,  although 
the  voyage  exceeds  seven  thousand  miles.  Will  you  leave  this 
survey  and  its  benefits  to  England  ? 

Sir,  have  you  looked  recently  at  the  China  trade  ?  It  reaches 
already  seven  millions  in  value  annually.  Have  you  watched  the 
California  trade?  Its  export  of  bullion  alone  already  exceeds 


248  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

fifty  millions  of  dollars  annually,  and  as  yet  the  mineral  develop- 
ment of  that  state  has  only  begun.  The  settlement  of  the  Pacific 
coast  is  in  a  state  of  sheer  infancy.  There  is,  speaking  relatively, 
neither  capital  nor  labor  there  adequate  to  exhibit  the  forces  of 
industry  that  might  be  employed  in  that  wonderful  region.  Nor 
is  California  yet  conveniently  accessible.  The  railway  across 
Panama  is  not  yet  completed.  The  passage  through  Nicaragua  is 
not  perfect ;  that  which  leads  through  Tehuantepec  is  not  begun  ; 
nor  have  we  yet  extended,  even  so  far  as  to  the  Mississippi,  the  most 
important  and  necessary  one  of  them  all,  the  railroad  across  our 
own  country  to  San  Francisco.  The  emigrant  to  the  Atlantic 
coast  arrives  speedily  and  cheaply  from  whatever  quarter  of  the 
world ;  while  he  who  would  seek  the  Pacific  shore,  encounters 
charges  and  delays  which  few  can  sustain.  Nevertheless,  the 
commercial,  social,  political  movements  of  the  world,  are  now 
in  the  direction  of  California.  Separated  as  it  is  from  us  by 
foreign  lands,  or  more  impassable  mountains,  we  are  establishing 
there  a  custom-house,  a  mint,  a  dry  dock,  Indian  agencies,  and 
ordinary  and  extraordinary  tribunals  of  justice.  Without  wait- 
ing for  perfect  or  safe  channels,  a  strong  and  steady  stream  of 
emigration  flows  thither  from  every  state  and  every  district  east- 
ward of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  Similar  torrents  of  emigration 
are  pouring  into  California  and  Australia  from  the  South  Amer- 
ican states,  from  Europe,  and  from  Asia.  This  movement  is  not 
a  sudden,  or  accidental,  or  irregular,  or  convulsive  one ;  but  it  is 
one  for  which  men  and  nature  have  been  preparing  through  near 
four  hundred  years.  During  all  that  time  merchants  and  princes 
have  been  seeking  how  they  could  reach  cheaply  and  expedi- 
tiously,  "Cathay,"  "China,"  "the  East,"  that  intercourse  and 
commerce  might  be  established  between  its  ancient  nations  and 
the  newer  ones  of  the  west.  To  these  objects  Da  Gama,  Colum- 
bus, Americus,  Cabot,  Hudson,  and  other  navigators,  devoted 
their  talents,  their  labors,  and  their  lives.  Even  the  discovery  of 
this  continent  and  its  islands,  and  the  organization  of  society  and 
government  upon  them,  grand  and  important  as  these  events  have 
been,  were  but  conditional,  preliminary,  and  ancillary  to  the  more 
sublime  result,  now  in  the  act  of  consummation — the  reunion  of 
the  two  civilizations,  which,  having  parted  on  the  plains  of  Asia 
four  thousand  years  ago,  and  having  travelled  ever  afterward  in 
opposite  directions  around  the  world,  now  meet  again  on  the 


THE  WHALE  FISHERIES.  249 

coasts  and  islands  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Certainly,  no  mere 
human  event  of  equal  dignity  and  importance  has  ever  occurred 
upon  the  earth.  It  will  be  followed  by  the  equalization  of  the 
condition  of  society  and  the  restoration  of  the  unity  of  the  human 
family.  We  see  plainly  enough  why  this  event  could  not  have 
come  before,  and  why  it  has  come  now.  A  certain  amount  of 
human  freedom,  a  certain  amount  of  human  intelligence,  a  cer- 
tain extent  of  human  control  over  the  physical  obstacles  to  such 
a  reunion,  were  necessary.  All  the  conditions  have  happened 
and  concurred.  Liberty  has  developed  under  improved  forms  of 
government,  and  science  has  subjected  nature  in  Western  Europe 
and  in  America.  Navigation,  improved  by  steam,  enables  men 
to  outstrip  the  winds,  and  intelligence  conveyed  by  electricity 
excels  in  velocity  the  light.  With  these  favoring  circumstances 
there  has  come  also  a  sudden  abundance  of  gold,  that  largely 
relieves  labor  from  its  long  subjection  to  realized  capital.  Sir, 
this  movement  is  no  delusion.  It  will  no  more  stop  than  the  emi- 
gration from  Europe  to  our  own  Atlantic  shores  has  stopped,  or 
can  stop,  while  labor  is  worth  there,  twenty  cents  and  here  fifty 
cents  a  day.  Emigration  from  China  cannot  stop  while  labor  is 
worth  in  California  five  dollars  a  day,  and  in  the  West  Indies  ten 
dollars  a  month,  and  yet  is  worth  in  China  only  five  dollars  for 
that  period.  Accordingly,  we  have  seen  sixty-seven  ships  filled, 
in  three  months  of  the  present  year,  with  seventeen  thousand 
emigrants  in  the  ports  of  Hong  Kong,  Macao,  and  Whampoa,  and 
afterward  discharge  them  on  the  shores  of  California,  and  of 
Cuba,  and  other  islands  of  the  West  Indies. 

Sir,  have  you  considered  the  basis  of  this  movement,  that  this 
continent  and  Australia  are  capable  of  sustaining,  and  need  for 
their  development,  five  hundred  millions,  while  their  population 
is  confined  to  fifty  millions,  and  yet  that  Asia  has  two  hundred 
millions  of  excess  ?  As  for  those  who  doubt  that  this  great  move- 
ment will  quicken  activity  and  create  wealth  and  power  in  Cali- 
fornia and  Oregon,  I  leave  them  to  consider  what  changes  the 
movements,  similar  in  nature  but  inferior  in  force  and  slower  in 
effect,  have  produced  already  on  the  Atlantic  coast  of  America. 
As  to  those  who  cannot  see  how  this  movement  will  improve  the 
condition  of  Asia,  I  leave  them  to  reflect  upon  the  improvements 
in  the  condition  of  Europe  since  the  discovery  and  colonization  of 
America.  Who  does  not  see,  then,  that  every  year  hereafter, 


250  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

European  commerce,  European  politics,  European  thoughts,  and 
European  activity,  although  actually  gaining  greater  force — and 
European  connections,  although  actually  becoming  more  intimate 
— will,  nevertheless,  relatively  sink  in  importance ;  while  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  its  shores,  its  islands,  and  the  vast  regions  beyond, 
will  become  the  chief  theatre  of  events  in  the  world's  great  here- 
after ?  Who  does  not  see  that  this  movement  must  effect  our  own 
complete  emancipation  from  what  remains  of  European  influence 
and  prejudice,  and  in  turn  develop  the  American  opinion  and  in- 
fluence which  shall  remould  constitutions,  laws,  and  customs,  in 
the  land  that  is  first  greeted  by  the  rising  sun  ?  Sir,  although  I 
am  no  socialist,  no  dreamer  of  a  suddenly-coming  millennium,  I 
nevertheless  cannot  reject  the  hope  that  peace  is  now  to  have  her 
sway,  and  that  as  war  has  hitherto  defaced  and  saddened  the  At- 
lantic world,  the  better  passions  of  mankind  will  soon  have  their 
development  in  the  new  theatre  of  human  activity. 

Commerce  is  the  great  agent  of  this  movement.  "Whatever 
nation  shall  put  that  commerce  into  full  employment,  and  shall 
conduct  it  steadily  with  adequate  expansion,  will  become  necessa- 
rily the  greatest  of  existing  states  ;  greater  than  any  that  has  ever 
existed.  Sir,  you  will  claim  that  responsibility  and  that  high  des- 
tiny for  our  own  country.  Are  you  so  sure  that  by  assuming  the  one 
she  will  gain  the  other  ?  They  imply  nothing  less  than  universal 
commerce  and  the  supremacy  of  the  seas.  We  are  second  to 
England,  indeed,  but,  nevertheless,  how  far  are  we  not  behind  her 
in  commerce  and  in  extent  of  empire  !  I  pray  to  know  where  you 
will  go  that  you  will  not  meet  the  flag  of  England  fixed,  planted, 
rooted  into  the  very  earth  ?  If  you  go  northward,  it  waves  over 
half  of  this  Continent  of  North  America,  which  we  call  our  own. 
If  you  go  southward,  it  greets  you  on  the  Bermudas,  the  Bahamas, 
and  the  Caribbee  Islands.  On  the  Falkland  Islands  it  guards  the 
Straits  of  Magellan ;  on  the  South  Shetland  Island  it  watches  the 
passage  round  the  Horn ;  and  at  Adelaide  Island  it  warns  you 
that  you  have  reached  the  Antarctic  Circle.  When  you  ascend 
along  the  south-western  coast  of  America,  it  is  seen  at  Galopagos, 
overlooking  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  ;  and  having  saluted  it  there, 
and  at  Vancouver,  you  only  take  leave  of  it  in  the  far  northwest, 
when  you  are  entering  the  Arctic  Ocean.  If  you  visit  Africa, 
you  find  the  same  victorious  cross  guarding  the  coast  of  Gambia 
and  Sierra  Leone  and  St.  Helena.  It  watches  you  at  Cape  Town 


ARCTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS.  251 

as  you  pass  into  the  Indian  Ocean ;  while  on  the  northern  passage 
to  that  vast  sea  it  demands  your  recognition  from  Gibraltar,  as 
you  enter  the  Mediterranean ;  from  Malta,  when  you  pass  through 
the  Sicilian  Straits ;  on  the  Ionian  Islands  it  waves  in  protection 
of  Turkey ;  and  at  Aden  it  guards  the  passage  from  the  Red  Sea 
into  the  Indian  Ocean.  Wherever  western  commerce  has  gained 
an  entrance  to  the  Continent  of  Asia,  there  that  flag  is  seen  wav- 
ing over  subjugated  millions — at  Bombay,  at  Ceylon,  at  Singapore, 
at  Calcutta,  at  Lahore,  and  at  Hong  Kong ;  while  Australia  and 
nearly  all  the  islands  of  Polynesia  acknowledge  its  protection. 

Sir,  I  need  not  tell  you  that  wherever  that  flag  waves,  it  is  sup- 
ported and  cheered  by  the  martial  airs  of  England.  But  I  care 
not  for  that.  The  sword  is  not  the  most  winning  messenger  that 
can  be  sent  abroad  ;  and  commerce,  like  power,  upheld  by  armies 
and  navies,  may  in  time  be  found  to  cost  too  much.  But  what 
is  to  be  regarded  with  more  concern  is,  that  England  employs  the 
steam  engine  even  more  vigorously  and  more  universally  than  her 
military  force.  Steam  engines,  punctually  departing  and  arriving 
between  every  one  of  her  various  possessions  and  her  island  seat 
of  power,  bring  in  the  raw  material  from  every  manufacture  and 
supplies  for  every  want.  The  steam  engine  plies  incessantly  there, 
day  and  night,  converting  these  materials  into  fabrics  of  every 
variety,  for  the  use  of  man.  And  again  the  steam  engine  forever 
and  without  rest  moves  over  the  face  of  the  deep,  not  only  dis- 
tributing these  fabrics  to  every  part  of  the  globe,  but  disseminating 
also  the  thoughts,  the  principles,  the  language  and  religion  of  Eng- 
land. Sir,  we  are  bold  indeed  to  dare  competition  with  such  a 
power.  Nevertheless,  the  resources  for  it  are  adequate.  We  have 
coal  and  iron  no  less  than  she,  while  corn,  timber,  cattle,  hemp, 
wool,  cotton,  silk,  oil,  sugar,  and  the  grape,  quicksilver,  lead,  cop- 
per, silver,  and  gold,  are  all  found  within  our  own  broad  domain 
in  inexhaustible  profusion.  What  energies  we  have  already  ex- 
pended prove  that  we  have  in  reserve  all  that  are  needful.  What 
inventions  wre  have  made,  prove  our  equality  to  any  exigency. 
Our  capital  increases,  while  labor  scarcely  knows  the  burden  of 
taxation.  Our  Panama  route  to  China  has  a  decided  advantage 
over  that  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  and  at  the  same  time  vessels 
leaving  that  country  and  coming  round  the  Horn,  will  reach  New 
York  always  at  least  five  days  sooner  than  vessels  of  equal  speed 


252  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

can  double  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  make  the  port  of  Liver- 
pool. 

Mr.  President,  we  now  see  how  conspicuous  a  part  in  the  great 
movement  of  the  age,  California  and  Oregon  are  to  sustain,  and 
that,  as  yet,  they  are  separated  from  us  and  isolated.  They  will 
adhere  to  us  only  so  long  as  our  government  over  them  shall  be 
conducted,  not  for  our  benefit,  but  for  their  own.  Their  loyalty 
is  great,  but  it  cannot  exceed  that  of  the  thirteen  ancient  American 
colonies  to  Great  Britain  ;  and  yet  the  neglect  and  oppression  of 
their  commerce  undermined  that  loyalty,  and  resulted  in  their  in- 
dependence. I  hear  often  of  dangers  to  the  Union,  and  see  lines 
of  threatened  separation  drawn  by  passionate  men  or  alarmists,  on 
parallels  of  latitude ;  but,  in  my  judgment,  there  is  only  one  dan- 
ger of  severance — and  that  is  involved  in  the  possibility  of  crimi- 
nal neglect  of  the  new  communities  on  the  Pacific  coast,  while 
the  summits  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  of  the  Snowy  Mountains, 
mark  the  only  possible  line  of  dismemberment.  Against  that  dan- 
ger I  would  guard  as  against  the  worst  calamity  that  could  befall, 
not  only  my  country,  at  her  most  auspicious  stage  of  progress,  but 
mankind  also,  in  the  hour  of  their  brightest  hopes.  I  would  guard 
against  it  by  practicing  impartial  justice  toward  the  new  and  re- 
mote states  and  territories,  whose  political  power  is  small,  while 
their  wants  are  great,  and  by  pursuing  at  the  same  time,  writh 
liberality  and  constancy,  the  lofty  course  which  they  indicate,  of 
an  aspiring  yet  generous  and  humane  national  ambition. 

NOTE. — Some  very  interesting  facts  connected  with  the  history  of  the  commencement 
and  progress  of  the  Whale  Fisheries,  are  contained  in  the  following  letter,  dated, — 

"NEW  BEDFORD,  14th  August,  1852. 

"  DEAR  SIR, — The  commencement  of  the  whale  fishery  at  New  Bedford  is  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  I  believe,  coeval  with  its  commencement  at  Nantucket,  in  sailing  vessels.  The 
first  settlers  of  Nantucket  took  '  right  whales '  in  open  boats,  at  a  very  early  period ;  at 
what  period  they  first  ventured  farther,  in  sailing  vessels,  I  have  not  the  means  at  hand 
of  knowing;  but  as  early  as  1764,  small  sloops  of  40  to  60  tons,  were  fitted  out  at  New 
Bedford,  (then  called  Dartmouth),  by  Joseph  Russell,  the  pioneer  of  the  whale  fishery 
from  this  port.  These  vessels  ventured  out  only  in  the  summer  months,  off  the  Capes 
of  Virginia  and  Cape  Hatteras,  for  sperm  whales ;  taking  care  to  return  into  port  before 
the  equinoctial  gales  set  in.  The  blubber,  as  taken  from  the  whales,  was  brought  into 
port  and  tried  out  on  shore  :  this  practice  was  followed  for  many  years.  There  are  now 
living  in  New  Bedford,  two  old  gentlemen,  one  aged  91,  the  other  in  his  95th  year,  who 
perfectly  well  remember  seeing,  when  they  were  boys,  the  blubber  landed  from  the  ves- 
sels, and  witnessed  its  being  tried  out  on  shore. 

"  I  have  in  my  possession  the  account  books  of  Joseph  Russell,  dated  as  far  back  as 
1770,  showing  that  there  were,  at  that  time,  four  of  those  small  vessels  employed  in  the 
whale  fishery  on  the  southern  coast,  belonging  to  him ;  and  there  were  probably  others. 
These  account  books  were  kept  by  double  entry,  in  beautiful  hand-writing,  and  would 
do  credit  to  any  modern  book-keeper. 

"  The  vessels  were  increased  in  size,  not  long  previous  to  the  Revolutionary  War,  and 


THE  WHALE  FISHERIES.  253 

their  voyages  extended  to  the  West  India  Islands,  the  Bay  of  Mexico,  Cape  de  Verd 
Islands,  and  coast  of  Guinea,  until  1791,  •when  the  ship  Rebecca  ventured  into  the  Pacific 
Ocean. 

"  Living  men  have  witnessed  the  progress  of  the  whale  fishery,  from  the  time  when  a 
few  small  vessels,  with  an  investment  of  a  few  thousand  dollars,  were  fitted  out  from  a 
little  village  of  a  few  straggling  houses — their  voyages  limited  to  our  southern  coast. 
These  men  still  live  to  see  the  whaling  fleet  number  662  vessels,  averaging  300  tons 
each,  employing  a  capital  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars,  their  voyages  limited  to  no  sea 
or  ocean  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  and  that  little  village  grown  up  to  be  the  beautiful 
city  of  New  Bedford,  with  a  population  of  20,000  inhabitants,  and  owning  more  than 
half  of  the  whole  whaling  interest  of  the  United  States. 

"  Believe  me,  very  sincerely  and  respectfully  yours, 

-  WM.  T.  RUSSELL." 

"  Hon.  "VVir.  H.  SEWAED,  Washington." 


VOL.  1— IT. 


254  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


THE    AMERICAN    FISHEKIES. 

AUGUST    14,    1862 

THE  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  transmitting  information  in  regard 
to  the  fisheries  on  the  coasts  of  the  British  Possessions  in  North  America,  being  under 
consideration,  Mr.  Seward  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  When  this  debate  was  suspended  on  Thursday 
last,  a  question  had  just  arisen,  whether  the  executive  administra- 
tion had  been  censured  here  for  its  conduct  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Virginia,  [Mr.  MASON,]  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  when  addressing  the  Sen- 
ate, remarked  that  if  the  President  had  done  his  duty,  the  whole 
naval  force  of  the  country  had  been  already  sent  into  the  north- 
eastern seas  to  protect  the  rights  of  American  fishermen  against 
British  cannon.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Maine,  [Mr.  HAM- 
LEST,]  the  honorable  and  distinguished  Senator  from  Michigan, 
[Mr.  CASS,]  and  the  honorable  Senator  from  Arkansas,  [Mr.  BOR- 
LAND,] declared  that  they  fully  concurred  in  all  that  had  been  said 
by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Yirginia. 

Now,  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  whole  naval  force  of  the  coun- 
try has  not  even  yet  been  sent  into  those  seas,  and  I  suppose  it 
equally  certain  that  at  that  time  none  had  been  sent  there. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Arkansas,  [Mr.  BORLAND,]  ex- 
pressed astonishment  and  regret  that  the  President  had  not,  with- 
out a  call,  sent  here  all  the  information  which  he  possessed.  He 
complained  that  the  Secretary  of  State  had  "  treated  the  subject 
wrongly  in  what  has  been  called  his  'proclamation,'  "  that  it  "  cast 
doubts  on  the  rights  of  the  fishermen."  Alluding  to  rumored 
negotiation  at  Mr.  Webster's  country  residence,  he  declared  his 
opinion  that  the  place  was  ill-chosen,  and  indeed  that  negotiation 


THE  AMERICAN  FISHERIES.  255 

there,  or  even  here,  under  the  circumstances,  ought  to  be  repro- 
bated altogether.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut,  [Mr. 
TOUCEY,]  asked  what  was  the  meaning  of  the  notice  published  by 
the  Secretary  of  State.  Was  it  designed  to  induce  our  fishermen 
to  retire  from  their  pursuits — to  invite  us  to  surrender  the  rights 
secured  to  us  by  the  convention  of  1818  ?  The  honorable  senator 
was  pleased  to  express  his  sorrow  that  he  could  not  have  confi- 
dence in  the  administration,  and  also  an  opinion  that  it  needed  to 
be  prompted.  The  honorable  and  esteemed  Senator  from  Louis- 
iana, [Mr.  SorLE,]  was  more  cautious ;  but  even  he  complained 
that  some  of  our  rights  in  the  fisheries  had  "  brutally  been  torn 
away  "  "  in  the  midst  of  the  most  profound  peace,"  and  "  when 
England  was  incessantly  receiving  most  profuse  tokens  and  mani- 
festations of  condescension,  and  was  allowed  to  turn  to  her  own 
advantage  and  profit  the  good  will  indulged  toward  us  by  Nica- 
ragua, and  had  been  allowed  to  introduce  her  bankers  into  our 
treasury,  as  agents  in  the  payment  of  our  debt  to  Mexico.  These," 
said  the  senator,  "  I  repeat  it  again,  are  strange  times  indeed." 
Again  that  senator  argued,  that  Mr.  "Webster  had  erred  when  he 
said,  in  the  notice  published  by  him,  that  it  was  "  an  oversight  in 
the  American  Government  to  have  made  so  large  a  concession  to 
Great  Britain  in  the  convention  of  1818."  Further  the  honorable 
senator  said : 

"  We  may,  for  aught  we  know,  have  negotiated  away,  by  treaty,  a  branch  of  our  reve- 
nue, with  the  hope  that  we  would  silence  the  roaring  lion  ;  but  the  lion  still  roars,  it 
seems,  and  will  roar  until  he  frightens  us  out  of  those  bounds  the  participation  in  which 
we  acquired  by  original  occupation,  if  not  otherwise  :  which  we  retained  as  a  constitutive 
element  of  our  separate  existence  as  a  nation ;  which  war  itself  could  not  wrest  from 
us  ;  which  we  hold  under  no  grace  or  favor  of  any  one,  but  under  the  sufferance  of  God 
alone,  and  under  the  highest  sanctions  of  the  laws  of  nations  ;  for,  in  the  language  of  the 
now  redeemed  negotiators,  who  signed  the  convention  of  1818,  ours  is  a  right  which  can- 
not exclusively  belong  to,  or  be  granted  by,  any  nation.  Sir,  I  ask  it  of  you,  would 
that  be  an  attitude  becoming  this  great  country  ?  But  I  believe  not  in  these  rumors ; 
it  cannot  have  escaped  that  wise  and  clear-sighted  person  who  now  holds  the  seals  of  the 
state,  and  whose  great  mind  and  exalted  patriotism  are  equal  to  any  emergencies,  that 
to  negotiate  under  such  circumstances,  and  sign  a  treaty,  whatever  its  merits  in  other 
respects  be,  were  to  sink  in  the  dust  what  of  pride,  what  of  dignity,  what  of  honor,  we 
have  grown  to  in  the  rapid  race  which  we  had  been  running  since  we  became  a  nation." 

I  disclaim  the  idea,  that  these  strictures  impute  want  of  patri- 
otism or  of  fidelity  to  the  administration ;  but,  when  taken  together 
with  the  facts  which  they  assume,  they  seem  to  me  to  import  a 
censure  of  this  effect  and  extent,  viz  :  that  her  Britannic  Majesty's 
government  has  recently  set  up  a  new  construction  of  the  conven- 
tion of  1818,  by  which  it  proposes  now  to  draw  lines  from  chief 


256  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

headland  to  chief  headland,  and  thus  to  exclude  American  fisher- 
men from  the  Bays  of  Fundy,  Chaleur,  and  Mirirnachi,  and  also 
from  the  Straits  of  Northumberland  and  the  Gut  of  Canso,  all  of 
which  have  hitherto  been  enjoyed  by  our  fishermen  ;  and  that  her 
Britannic  Majesty?s  government  has  sent  a  large  naval  force  into 
those  waters  to  enforce  that  new  construction,  and  has  so  attempted 
to  bring  us  to  negotiate  for  maintaining  national  rights  at  the 
cannon's  mouth  ;  that  the  executive  has  not  acted  with  sufficient 
promptness  and  decision,  has  not  properly  resented  an  insult  and 
an  indignity  received,  and  has  already  negotiated,  or  may  be  ne- 
gotiating, or  about  to  negotiate,  in  the  presence  of  that  naval 
force,  in  derogation  from  the  interest  or  dignity  or  honor  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  Great  Britain  has  been  emboldened  and 
rendered  thus  insolent  by  previous  diplomatic  triumphs  over  the 
present  administration. 

Sir,  I  take  leave  to  say  that  there  is  a  presumption,  a  violent 
presumption,  against  the  soundness  and  the  justness  of  all  such 
censures.  There  is  no  want  of  firmness  or  of  boldness  in  asserting 
American  rights  here  or  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Expe- 
rience has  shown,  that  the  executive  department  has  generally 
been  quite  as  firm  and  as  bold  as  Congress.  Sir,  the  fisheries  are 
a  commercial  interest.  By  peculiar  fidelity  in  guarding  such  in- 
terests, this  administration  has  deservedly  gained  the  confidence 
of  the  commercial  classes,  the  conservative  classes  of  the  country. 
The  fisheries  are  practically  and  peculiarly  a  northern  interest.  In 
the  geographical  balance  they  were  once  weighed  against  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  The  President  of  the  United  States 
and  the  Secretary  of  State  are  northern  men.  Each  began,  and, 
when  he  shall  have  closed  his  public  career,  each  will  rest  in  the 
associations  of  the  north. 

More  than  this :  the  fisheries  are  an  interest  of  the  states  of 
Massachusetts  and  Maine,  which  practically  are  undivided  and 
inseparable  in  commercial  fortunes.  The  Secretary  of  State,  in 
whose  department  this  properly  belongs,  is  a  man  of  Massachu- 
setts— is  it  too  much  to  say  the  MAN  of  MASSACHUSETTS  ?  The  ocean, 
with  its  fisheries,  washes  the  shore  of  the  farm  on  which  he  dwells. 
Is  ay,  sir,  he  is  an  angler  himself,  I  am  told,  and  of  course  he  is  a 
good  one,  for  he  is  not  half  and  half  in  anything.  He  tills  the 
sea,  and  I  fear  his  principal  harvests  are  gathered  upon  it ;  are 
gathered  with  the  line,  and  not  with  the  sickle.  There  is  a  stron«- 


THE  AMERICAN  FISHERIES.  257 

presumption  that  the  Secretary  would  be  faithful  to  an  interest  so 
near  to  himself  and  the  constituency  to  whom  he  chiefly  owes  the 
long  public  life  which  he  has  enjoyed.  A  distinguished  artist  of 
our  country  has  enriched  our  academies  with  a  national  painting. 
It  represents  the  Secretary  of  State  defending  the  honor  and  fame 
of  Massachusetts  against  the  assault  of  an  eminent  orator  of  South 
Carolina,  [Mr.  HAYNE.]  That  is  a  heroic  piece  ;  let  honorable 
senators  here  take  care  that  they  do  not  provoke  the  artist  to  pro- 
duce a  comic  counterpart,  in  which  the  Senators  from  Arkansas 
and  Louisiana  [Mr.  BORLAND  and  Mr.  SOTTLE]  may  be  presented  in 
the  act  of  saving  Massachusetts  from  desolation  brought  on  through 
the  timidity  of  her  own,  her  chosen  and  honored  statesman.  Such 
a  picture  might  enter  into  a  new  and  interesting  series  of  political 
illustrations,  to  be  entitled  "  The  Yagaries  of  a  Presidential  Elec- 
tion." 

Mr.  President,  the  statesman  thus  impeached  for  want  of  bold- 
ness and  firmness  in  defending  his  country's  maritime  rights,  is  he 
who  replied  to  Great  Britain,  when  claiming  for  the  last  time  the 
right  to  "search"  American  vessels,  "The  ocean  is  the  sphere  of 
the  law  of  nations  ;  every  vessel  on  the  seas  is,  by  that  law,  under 
the  protection  of  the  laws  of  her  own  nation."  "  The  practice  of 
impressing  seamen  from  American  vessels  cannot  hereafter  be 
allowed  to  take  place."  "  In  every  regularly-documented  Ameri- 
can merchant  vessel,  the  crew  who  navigate  it  will  find  their  pro- 
tection in  the  flag  which  is  over  them." 

Sir,  the  statesman  thus  impeached  for  being  unreliable  in  de- 
fending the  interests  of  Massachusetts,  is  he  who,  in  the  memor- 
able debate  to  which  I  have  referred,  achieved  his  triumph  with 
the  words : 

"  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium  upon  Massachusetts.  She  needs  none.  There  she  is. 
Behold  her,  and  judge  for  yourselves.  There  is  her  history  ;  the  world  knows  it  by 
heart.  The  past  is  at  least  secure.  There  is  Boston,  and  Concord,  and  Lexington,  and 
Bunker  Hill — and  there  they  will  remain  forever." 

I  shall  enter  into  no  encomium  on  the  Secretary  of  State — he 
needs  none.  I  should  be  incompetent  to  grasp  so  great  a  theme, 
if  it  wrere  needed.  The  Secretary  of  State  !  There  he  is.  Behold 
him,  and  judge  for  yourselves.  There  is  his  history ;  there  are  his 
ideas — his  thoughts  spread  over  every  page  of  your  annals  for 
near  half  a  century.  There  are  his  ideas,  his  thoughts  impressed 
upon  and  inseparable  from  the  mind  of  his  country  and  the  spirit 


258  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  the  age.  The  world  knows  them  all  by  heart.  There  they  are, 
and  there  they  will  be  forever.  The  past  is  at  least  secure.  The 
past  is  enough,  of  itself,  to  guarantee  a  future  of  fame  unapproach- 
able and  inextinguishable.* 

Mr.  President,  a  simple  narrative  shall  now  accomplish  the  two 
purposes  for  which  I  address  the  Senate.  It  shall  show  that  the 
censures  of  honorable  Senators  are  erroneous,  and  it  will  lead  us 
to  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  issue  involved  in  the  question  which 
occupies  the  Senate. 

I  pass  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  All  the  world  knows  that,  in 
common  with  the  people  of  England,  wre  were  subjects  of  the  King 
of  Great  Britain,  and  that  in  the  war  which  terminated  that  con- 
nection we  secured  not  only  independence,  but  also  an  equal  right, 
in  common  with  those  who  remained  subjects,  in  the  fisheries, 
which  had  before  been  enjoyed  in  common.  I  pass  by  the  treaty 
of  1815.  It  was  a  treaty  concluded  at  the  end  of  our  second  war 
with  Great  Britain.  In  that  treaty,  no  allusion  whatever  was 
made  to  the  subject ;  and  so  Great  Britain  contended  that  our 
rights  to  the  fisheries  were  gone  with  the  war,  because  they  had 
not  been  re-established  by  the  treaty  of  peace.  We  maintained, 
on  the  contrary,  that  we  retained  all  those  rights,  because  they 
had  not  been  surrendered  in  the  treaty  of  peace.  The  convention 
of  1818  was  a  convention  made  for  the  purpose  of  settling  this 
great  dispute,  and  did  settle  it  in  this  way.  The  United  States 
took,  under  it,  the  equal  right  to  fish  in  common  with  his  Britannic 
Majesty's  subjects,  in  the  waters  that  wash  the  southern  coast  of 
Newfoundland,  from  Cape  Hay  to  the  Ramearu  Islands ;  on  the 
northern  and  western  coasts  of  Newfoundland,  from  Cape  Ray  to 
the  Quirpon  Islands  ;  and  also  the  right  to  fish  along  the  Magdalene 
Islands,  and  from  Mount  Jolly,  on  the  southern  coast  of  Labrador, 
to  and  through  the  Straits  of  Belleisle,  and  thence  northward  in- 
definitely. Here,  on  this  map,  you  see  these  common  fishing 
grounds.  By  that  convention,  the  United  States  renounced  all 
right  to  fish  anywhere  within  the  distance  of  three  miles  of  the 
shore,  within  any  other  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of 
his  Majesty's  dominions  in  North  America,  or  to  enter  them  for 
any  cause  but  distress  and  want  of  wood  and  water.  The  fisheries 
to  which  this  provision  was  applicable  were  on  the  excepted  coasts 

*  Mr.  Webster  highly  appreciated  the  magnanimity  of  Mr.  Seward  in  this  instance,  and 
acknowledged  it  in  the  handsomest  terms. — ED. 


THE  AMERICAN  FISHERIES.  259 

of  Nova  Scotia,  New  Brunswick,  Cape  Breton,  Prince  Edward's 
Island,  and  a  portion  of  Canada,  called  Gaspe.  You  see  them  all 
here  on  the  chart. 

Will  the  Senate  please  to  notice  that  the  principal  fisheries  in 
the  waters  to  which  these  limitations  apply,  are  the  mackerel  and 
the  herring  fisheries,  and  that  these  are  what  are  called  "  shoal 
fisheries ;"  that  is  to  say,  the  best  fishing  for  mackerel  and  her- 
rings is  within  three  miles  of  the  shore.  Therefore,  by  that  re- 
nunciation, the  United  States  renounced  the  best  mackerel  and 
herring  fisheries.  Senators  please  to  notice  also,  that  the  privilege 
of  resort  to  the  shore  constantly,  to  cure  and  dry  fish,  is  very  im- 
portant. Fish  can  be  cured  sooner ;  and  the  sooner  cured,  the 
better  they  are,  and  the  better  is  the  market  price.  This  circum- 
stance has  given  to  the  colonies  a  great  advantage  over  us  in  this 
trade.  It  has  stimulated  their  desire  to  abridge  the  American 
fishery  as  much  as  possible  ;  and  indeed  they  seek  naturally  enough 
to  procure  our  exclusion  altogether  from  the  fishing  grounds.  Such 
was  the  convention  of  1818,  and  such  its  effects. 

On  the  14th  of  June,  1819,  the  British  parliament  passed  an  act 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  provisions  of  this  treaty  into  effect, 
by  which  they  authorized  the  king  to  issue  orders  in  council.  By 
orders  in  council,  the  government  of  Great  Britain  provided  for 
the  seizure  of  persons  trespassing  within  the  forbidden  fishing 
grounds,  or  abusing  the  conceded  privileges. 

The  provincial  government  of  Nova  Scotia,  in  1836,  passed  a 
very  stringent  law  for  the  purpose,  or  under  the  pretext,  of  pre- 
venting encroachments  by  American  fishermen ;  and  simultane- 
ously with  this  act,  they  set  up  the  claim  to  exclude  the  American 
fishermen  from  entering  the  great  bays  of  Fundy  and  Chaleur,  and 
all  other  great  bays ;  and  also  to  shut  up  the  Gut  of  Canso,  to  pre- 
vent American  fishermen  from  using  that  very  necessary  channel 
to  reach  the  Straits  of  Northumberland  and  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law- 
rence. That  province  asserted,  at  the  same  time,  that  by  the  true 
and  just  construction  of  the  convention  of  1818,  we  were  excluded 
from  the  British  harbors  and  waters,  except  in  case  of  actual  dis- 
tress; and  authorized  the  police  to  'assume  to  judge  absolutely 
what  were  cases  of  distress,  and  when  the  plea  was  at  end ;  and 
declared  it  a  cause  of  forfeiture,  also,  when  a  fisherman  came  in 
for  wood  or  water,  without  showing  that  he  had  been  well  sup- 
plied when  he  left  home.  The  province  also  declared  it  an  abuse 


2CO  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  ground  of  forfeiture,  when  our  fishermen  baited  fish  within 
three  miles  from  the  shore,  for  the  purpose  of  tempting  them  out 
into  the  deep  sea ;  and  also  when  they  prepared,  within  three  miles 
of  the  shore,  to  fish  outside  those  limits. 

Moreover,  the  Nova  Scotia  statute  rendered  it  almost  impossible 
for  a  fisherman  to  defend  a  just  cause,  because  it  allowed  only  a 
month  in  which  to  prepare  his  defence,  and  cast  the  onus probandi 
on  the  party  libelled.  Mr.  Stevenson,  and  after  him  Mr.  Everett, 
remonstrated  with  the  Imperial  government  against  this  atrocious 
act,  and  insisted  on  the  same  construction  of  the  act  we  now  de- 
mand. The  Imperial  government  indulged  a  desire  to  accom- 
modate, and  submitted  such  a  proposition  to  the  colonial  autho- 
rities of  Nova  Scotia.  That  colony  resisted,  as  I  think  did  all  the 
others  ;  and  Nova  Scotia  requested  the  opinion  of  the  law  officers 
of  the  crown  on  the  construction  of  the  treaty  in  regard  to  all  the 
points  to  which  I  have  thus  adverted.  Those  law  officers  con- 
firmed all  the  pretensions  of  the  Nova  Scotians.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, the  British  government,  declaring  their  adherence  to 
the  construction  given  by  the  law  officers,  yielded  to  the  appeal 
of  the  United  States  so  far  as  to  grant,  as  a  concession,  that  the 
Bay  of  Fundy  should  be  open  to  the  American  fishermen,  subject 
to  the  limitation  of  not  going  within  three  miles  of  the  shore,  and 
they  declined  to  concede  more.  The  American  minister,  Mr.  Eve- 
rett, received  this  not  as  a  concession,  but  as  a  right.  The  British 
minister  insisted  that  it  should  be  regarded  not  as  a  right,  but  as 
a  concession. 

Mr.  Everett  wrote  on  the  25th  of  March,  1845,  thus  : 

"  I  received  a  few  day  since,  and  herewith  transmit,  a  note  from  Lord  Aberdeen,  con- 
taining the  satisfactory  intelligence  that,  after  a  reconsideration  of  the  subject,  although 
the  Queen's  government  adhere  to  the  construction  of  the  convention  which  they  have  al- 
ways maintained,  they  have  still  come  to  the  determination  of  relaxing  from  it,  so  far  as 
to  allow  American  fishermen  to  pursue  their  avocations  in  the  BAT  OF  FCNDV." 

So,  the  one  party  calling  it  a  "  concession,"  the  other  defining 
it  a  "  right,"  the  privilege  of  fishing,  or  the  right  to  fish  within  the 
Bay  of  Fundy,  except  within  three  miles  of  the  shore,  was  ad- 
mitted, and  so  has  constituted  a  departure,  in  one  instance  and  on 
one  point,  from  the  rigorous  construction  otherwise  pertinaciously 
adhered  to  by  the  government  of  Great  Britain. 

What  the  British  government  had  thus  conceded  as  a  relaxation, 
the  colonial  authorities  still  declared  was  unwise  ;  and  although 
this  concession  had  been  made,  yet  all  that  time,  as  well  as  ever 


THE  AMERICAN  FISHERIES.  261 

since,  the  provincial  authorities  have  insisted  upon  the  technical 
and  rigorous  construction  of  the  treaty,  and  the  United  States 
upon  the  more  liberal  and  just  one.  The  Imperial  government, 
although  it  adopted  and  has  adhered  to  the  provincial  construc- 
tion, has  nevertheless  always  declined  to  maintain  it  practically 
by  force.  Such  have  been  the  attitudes  of  the  three  parties  here- 
tofore. Such  are  their  attitudes  now. 

Now,  sir,  during  all  this  time,  and  I  do  not  know  how  long  be- 
fore, the  Imperial  government  has  kept  some  naval  force  in  those 
seas,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  encroachments  and  abuses  by 
American  and  French  fishermen ;  and  the  colonies  have,  at  all 
times,  I  believe,  made  some  show  of  naval  force  for  that  purpose, 
or  on  that  pretext. 

In  the  last  year,  a  new  administration,  with  the  Earl  of  Derby 
at  its  head,  obtained  the  control  of  the  Imperial  government. 
That  administration  was  understood  to  favor  the  principle  of  pro- 
tection. The  United  States  pay  considerable  bounty  to  their  fisher- 
men— bounties  amounting  to  about  $300,000  a  year ; — and  they 
impose  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  foreign  fish. 

The  colonial  fishermen  claimed  of  the  new  ministry,  as  they 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  claiming  of  the  old  ministry,  the  assent 
of  the  royal  government  to  the  granting  of  bounties  ;  and  they 
complained  to  the  new  ministry,  as  they  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
complaining  to  the  old  one,  of  the  encroachments  of  the  Amer- 
ican fishermen.  The  colonial  authorities  last  year,  by  reports 
and  resolutions,  threatened  retaliation  against  the  United  States 
in  some  form,  if  these  claims  and  complaints  should  be  disre- 
garded. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  Imperial  government,  in  1851, 
proposed  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  negotiate  con- 
cerning the  questions  raised  by  the  British  colonies,  and  submitted, 
through  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  a  schedule  of  the  terms  or  principles 
upon  which  that  government  would  negotiate,  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  the.  commercial  intercourse 
between  the  provinces  and  the  United  States.  The  President  of 
the  United  States  altogether  declined  to  negotiate  ;  and  he  referred 
the  subject  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  his  annual 
message  of  December  last,  in  these  words  : 

O  ' 

"  Your  attention  is  again  invited  to  tho  question  of  reciprocal  trade  between  the 
United  States  and  Canada  and  other  British  possessions  near  our  frontier.  Overtures 


262  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

for  a  convention  upon  this  subject  have  been  received  from  her  Britannic  Majesty's  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary,  but  it  seems  to  be  in  many  respects  preferable  that  the  matter 
should  be  regulated  by  reciprocal  legislation.  Documents  are  laid  before  you,  showing 
the  terms  which  the  British  government  is  willing  to  offer,  and  the  measures  which  it 
may  adopt,  if  some  arrangement  upon  this  subject  shall  not  be  made" 

Thus,  in  December  last,  was  Congress  invited  by  the  Presi- 
dent to  consider  the  subject  out  of  which  all  the  present  difficul- 
ties have  arisen ;  and  we  then  had  this  notice  from  the  British 
ministry,  viz : 

"  Her  Majesty's  government  are  prepared,  on  certain  conditions  and  with  certain 
reservations,  to  make  the  concessions  to  which  so  much  importance  seems  to  have  been 
attached  by  Mr.  Clayton,  namely — to  throw  open  to  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States 
the  fisheries  in  the  waters  of  the  British  North  American  colonies,  with  permission  to 
those  fishermen  to  land  on  the  coasts  of  those  colonies,  for  the  purpose  of  drying  their 
nets  and  curing  their  fish ;  provided  that,  in  so  doing,  they  do  not  interfere  with  the 
owners  of  private  property,  or  with  the  operations  of  British  fishermen." 

Congress  did  nothing,  said  nothing,  thought  nothing,  on  the 
subject.  The  colonies,  in  the  meantime,  contined  to  complain  of 
encroachments,  and  continued  to  demand  the  consent  of  the  Impe- 
rial government  to  the  granting  of  bounties.  The  Imperial 
government  answered  that,  to  remove  the  complaints  of  the  colo- 
nies, they  would  not  object  to  measures  being  taken  by  the 
colonies  themselves  for  the  granting  of  bounties,  and  that  they 
would  send  an  additional  force  to  protect  them  against  encroach- 
ments. Such  a  force  was  sent,  and  simultaneously  with  sending 
it,  the  British  minister  here,  on  the  5th  of  July  last,  informed  the 
President  of  its  coming,  and  its  objects,  in  the  following  commu- 
nication : 

"  I  have  been  directed  by  her  Majesty's  government  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States  a  measure  which  has  been  adopted  by  her  Majesty's 
government  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  the  complaints  which  have  so  frequently  been 
made,  of  the  encroachments  of  vessels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  and 
of  France  upon  the  fishing  grounds  reserved  to  Great  Britain  by  the  convention  of  1818. 

"  Urgent  representations  having  been  addressed  to  her  Majesty's  government  by  the 
governors  of  the  British  North  American  provinces,  in  regard  to  these  encroachments, 
whereby  the  colonial  fisheries  are  most  seriously  prejudiced,  directions  have  been  given 
by  the  Lords  of  her  Majesty's  Admiralty,  for  stationing  off  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia, 
Prince  Edward's  Island,  and  in  the  Gulf  of  St  Lawrence,  such  a  force  of  small  sailing 
vessels  and  steamers  as  shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  prevent  the  infraction  of  the  treaty. 
It  is  the  command  of  the  Queen  that  the  officers  employed  upon  this  service  shall  be 
especially  enjoined  to  avoid  all  interference  "with  the  vessels  of  friendly  powers,  except 
where  they  are  in  the  act  of  violating  the  treaty,  and  on  all  occasions  to  avoid  giving 
ground  of  complaint  by  the  adoption  of  harsh  or  unnecessary  proceedings  when  circum- 
stances compel  their  arrest  or  seizure." 

Let  us  now  see  what  force  it  is  that  has  been  sent  into  the  field 
of  the  dispute.  There  is  the  Buzzard,  a  steamer  of  six  guns ; 
the  Sappho,  a  sloop  of  twelve  guns ;  and  the  Bermuda,  a  schooner 
of  three  guns,  sent  to  the  Straits  of  Belleisle,  and  on  the  coast  of 


THE  AMERICAN  FISHERIES.  -263 

Newfoundland,  where  we  have  an  unquestioned  right  of  fishing, 
and  where  there  is  no  controversy.  Then  there  is  the  Devasta- 
tion, a  steamer  of  six  guns  ;  the  Arrow  and  the  Telegraph,  of  one 
gun  each ;  and  the  Nettley,  of  two  guns,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law- 
rence ;  making  in  the  whole  seven  vessels,  with  a  total  of  thirty- 
one  guns,  sent  by  the  Imperial  government  into  those  waters.  If 
you  add  to  this  force  the  flag-ship  of  Vice- Admiral  Seymour,  the 
Cumberland,  with  seventy  guns,  there  are  altogether  one  hundred 
and  one  guns.  This  is  the  naval  force  which  has  been  sent  into 
the  north-eastern  seas. 

Now,  I  desire  the  Senate  to  take  notice  what  force  was  there 
before  this  great  naval  force  was  sent.  Last  year  there  was  the 
flag-ship,  the  Cumberland,  commanded  by  the  same  Sir  Charles 
Seymour,  with  seventy  guns ;  a  frigate,  of  twenty-six  guns ;  two 
sloops,  of  sixteen  guns ;  and  one  steamer,  of  six  guns ;  making, 
in  the  whole,  sixty-four  guns  without  the  Cumberland,  and,  includ- 
ing the  Cumberland,  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  guns. 

Then  this  mighty  naval  demonstration,  which  has  so  excited 
the  Senate,  and  roused  its  indignation,  and  brought  down  its 
censures  upon  the  administration,  consists  in  a  reduction  of  the 
naval  force  which  Great  Britain  had  in  those  waters  a  year  ago, 
from  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  to  one  hundred  and  one  guns. 
What  the  British  government  has  done  has  been  to  withdraw 
some  large  steamers,  because  they  were  not  so  useful  in  accom- 
plishing the  objects  designed,  or  because  they  would  be  more 
useful  elsewhere,  and  to  substitute  in  their  place  a  large  number 
of  inferior  vessels,  either  more  efficient  there,  or  less  useful  else- 
where. 

The  Senate  will  understand  me.  I  do  not  say  this  is  the 
whole  force  which  is  in  those  waters.  There  is  an  increase,  I 
think,  on  the  whole,  which  is  furnished  by  small  vessels  of  the 
different  provinces  ;  Canada  having  sent  one  ;  Newfoundland  one' 
Nova  Scotia  four.  But  the  question  I  am  upon,  and  the  real 
question  now  is,  what  the  Imperial  government  has  done,  and  so 
I  say  the  British  government  has  reduced  the  number  of  guns 
employed. 

Now,  when  this  force  was  approaching,  a  letter  from  Sir  John 
Packington,  bearing  somewhat  the  tone  of  a  proclamation,  ap- 
peared, and  at  the  time  was  magnified  and  applauded  by  the  colo- 
nial newspapers  in  a  most  bellicose  manner ;  and  before  the  letter 


264  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  the  British  minister  could  have  been  read  or  received  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  an  alarm  went  abroad  throughout 
the  fisheries,  and  along  the  north-eastern  coasts.  It  was  exactly 
at  the  season  when  the  fishermen  were  going  to  the  ocean  fields  to 
gather  their  autumnal  harvests.  The  President,  it  seems,  took 
pains  to  obtain  information  informally,  and  he  caused  it  to  be 
published  in  a  notice  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  dated 
at  the  Department  of  State,  July  6,  1852,  and  which  has  been 
called  here  the  "proclamation"  of  the  Secretary.  The  Senate 
will  see  that  the  Secretary  of  State  set  forth  such  unofficial  infor- 
mation as  had  been  obtained,  and  all  the  information  was  unoffi- 
cial, and  stated  the  popular  inference  then  prevalent,  saying  that 
the  Imperial  government  "  appeared  "  now  to  be  willing  to  adopt 
the  construction  of  the  convention  insisted  on  by  the  colonies. 
Inferring,  from  circumstances,  the  hazards  and  dangers  which 
would  arise,  he  set  forth  the  case  precisely  as  it  seemed  to  stand. 
He  adverted  to  the  question  understood  as  likely  to  be  put  in 
issue,  and  admitting  that  technically  the  convention  of  1818 
would  bear  the  rigorous  construction  insisted  on  by  the  colonies, 
he  declared  the  dissent  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
from  it ;  and  then  communicated  the  case  to  the  persons  engaged 
in  this  hard  and  hazardous  trade,  that  they  might  be  "  on  their 
guard." 

I  am  surprised  that  any  doubts  should  be  raised  as  to  the  pro- 
clamation being  the  act  of  the  government.  I  do  not  understand 
how  a  senator  or  citizen  can  officially  know  that  the  Secretary  of 
State  is  at  Marshfield,  or  elsewhere,  when  the  seal  and  date  of  the 
department  affirm  that  he  is  at  the  capital.  I  would  like  to  know 
where  or  when  this  government  or  this  administration  has  dis- 
avowed this  proclamation. 

In  issuing  this  notice,  the  Secretary  of  State  did  just  what  the 
Secretary  of  State  had  been  in  the  habit  of  doing  in  such  cases, 
from  the  foundation  of  the  government,  viz :  he  issued  it  to  put 
citizens  on  their  guard  in  a  case  of  apparent  danger,  resulting 
from  threatened  embarrassment  of  our  relations  with  a  foreign 
power.  The  first  notice  of  the  kind  which  I  have  found  in  his- 
tory, is  a  notice  issued  by  Thomas  Jeiferson,  Secretary  of  State 
under  George  Washington,  to  the  merchants  of  the  United  States, 
informing  them  of  the  British  orders  in  council,  and  of  the  de- 
crees of  the  French  Directory,  and  of  the  apprehended  seizure 


THE  AMERICAN  FISHERIES.  265 

and  confiscation  of  American  vessels  under  them ;  and  assuring 
the  American  merchants  that,  for  whatever  they  might  unlaw- 
fully lose,  the  government  of  the  United  States  would  take  care 
that  they  should  be  indemnified.  I  brought  that  to  the  notice  of 
the  Senate  heretofore  ;  and  upon  that  ground,  among  others,  they 
have  twice  sanctioned  a  bill  providing  for  the  payment  of  losses 
by  French  spoliations.  The  notice  published  by  Mr.  Webster  was 
of  the  same  character  and  effect.  Since  that  time,  the  "  Missis- 
sippi," a  steam  war  frigate  of  the  United  States,  has  been  ordered 
to  those  waters,  to  cruise  there  for  the  protection  of  American 
fishermen  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  just  rights.  Thus  ends  the 
whole  story  of  these  transactions  about  the  fisheries.  The  diffi- 
culties on  the  fishing  grounds  have  "  this  extent,  no  more  " — they 
are  the  wonder  of  a  day  and  "no  longer. 

No  negotiation  has  been  had  between  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  English  government.  'No  negotiation  is 
now  in  progress  between  the  two  governments.  No  negotiation 
has  been  instituted  between  the  two  governments,  for  any  purpose 
whatever.  No  overture  of  negotiation  has  been  made  by  the 
British  government  since  the  last  year,  and  no  overture  has  been 
made  by  the  American  to  the  British  government.  So,  then,  it 
appears  that  nothing  has  been  negotiated  away  at  the  cannon's 
mouth,  because  there  has  been  no  negotiation  at  all,  either  at  the 
cannon's  mouth  or  elsewhere.  There  has  been  no  negotiation 
under  duress,  because  there  has  been  no  pretence  of  a  design  by 
the  Imperial  government  to  enforce  its  rigorous  construction  of 
the  convention  of  1818,  or  to  depart  from  the  position  of  neu- 
trality, if  I  may  so  call  it,  always  heretofore  maintained.  All  the 
change  is,  that,  in  August,  1851,  the  British  government  had  134 
guns  on  that  station  ;  and  now,  in  August,  1852,  it  has  101  guns ; 
and  this  famous  Sir  Charles  Seymour,  who  sweeps  away,  not  only 
fishermen's  smacks,  but  also  the  icebergs  coming  down  from  Hud- 
son's Bay  and  off  the  coast  of  Labrador,  with  his  "  broom,"  is  the 
admiral  of  the  whole  station  of  British  North  America — a  field 
of  duty  which  reaches  from  Central  America  to  the  North  Pole. 
He  has  two  head-quarters :  one  at  Bermuda,  in  the  winter ;  and 
the  other  at  Halifax,  in  the  summer.  This  same  Admiral  Sey- 
mour was  in  those  seas  with  his  broom  last  year,  just  as  he  is  this 
year,  and  yet  he  excited  no  alarm  then.  He  has  four  trusts  to 
execute  for  his  government  with  the  small  force  at  his  command, 


266  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  which  his  flag-ship  constitutes  the  largest  portion.  The  first  of 
these  is  to  protect  British  rights  in  the  vicinity  of  Cuba,  just  as 
the  United  States  last  year  sent  a  vessel  to  maintain  their  rights 
and  perform  their  duties  there.  His  next  duty  is  to  secure  British 
rights  at  Greytown,  just  exactly  as  the  United  States  ought  to  have 
had  a  vessel  there  to  secure  their  rights.  The  third  duty  is  to 
watch  Solouque,  the  Emperor  of  Hayti,  to  prevent  him  from 
subjugating  the  Dominican  colony,  which  the  British  government 
is  bound  to  do  by  an  arrangement  existing  between  the  United 
States,  Great  Britain,  and  France ;  and  the  fourth  duty  is  to  pro- 
tect British  rights  in  these  fisheries  against  encroachments  and 
abuses  by  whomsoever  may  come  along.  The  season  of  fishing  is 
in  the  summer ;  and,  therefore,  the  admiral  arrives  at  Halifax 
writh  his  broom  during  that  season ;  and  perhaps,  also,  he  comes 
north  because  the  weather  is  more  pleasant.  There  have  been 
since  that  time  some  seizures — four  or  five,  I  believe  ;  but,  in  this 
there  has  been  nothing  new.  I  have  before  me  a  list  of  seizures 
of  American  vessels  for  the  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the 
convention  of  1818,  from  the  year  1839  to  the  year  1851.  They 
amount  in  the  whole  to  twenty-eight  vessels,  and  it  is  insisted  by 
the  Imperial  government  that  they  were  all  made  on  the  grounds 
of  violation  and  abuses  of  the  convention  of  1818,  as  construed 
by  ourselves. 

There  may  have  been  mistakes,  and  probably  instances  of  op- 
pression, but  the  British  government  is  understood  to  have  dis- 
claimed any  such.  More  or  less  of  these  seizures  have  been 
brought  to  the  notice  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
from  1839  to  this  time.  Yet  there  has  been  no  war — no  declara- 
tion of  war  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  there  has  been  the  most  pacific 
spirit  on  both  sides  which  could  be  imagined.  In  1836,  Mr.  For- 
syth,  the  then  Secretary  of  State,  was  so  pacific  and  friendly,  that 
he  informed  Mr.  Bankhead,  ~by  direction  of  the  President,  that 
"  masters,  owners,  and  others,  engaged  in  the  fisheries,"  were  to 
be  informed  by  the  collectors  "  that  complaints  had  been  made, 
that  they  were  enjoined"  to  the  strict  limits  assigned  for  taking 
fish  under  the  convention  of  1818.  So  in  that  year  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  collectors  of 
customs,  directing  them  to  instruct  the  American  fisherman  not  to 
encroach  "  upon  the  fishing  grounds  secured  exclusively  to  British 


THE  FISHERIES.  267 

fishermen  by  the  convention  of  1818."     So  in  1839,  Mr.  Yail, 
acting  Secretary  of  State,  in  an  official  communication,  said  : 

"  Under  the  supposition  that  many  of  the  seizures  had  been  made  upon  insufficient 
grounds,  and  in  order,  if  possible,  to  preclude  for  the  future  the  recurrence  of  such  pro- 
ceedings, the  acting  Secretary  of  State,  in  a  note  dated  the  10th  of  July,  called  the 
attention  of  the  British  Minister  to  the  cases  of  seizure  which  had  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  department,  and  requested  him  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  provincial  authorities 
to  the  ruinous  consequences  of  the  seizures  to  the  owners  of  the  vessels,  whatever  might 
be  the  issue  of  the  legal  proceedings  instituted  against  them,  and  to  exhort  them  to 
exercise  great  caution  and  forbearance  in  future,  in  order  that  American  citizens,  not 
manifestly  encroaching  upon  British  rights,  should  not  be  subject  to  interruption  in  the 
pursuit  of  their  lawful  vocations." 

Sir,  I  think  you  now  see  that  the  present  administration  has 
roared,  in  tones  of  defiance  of  Great  Britain,  at  least  as  loud  as 
these  utterances  of  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren  and  of 
General  Jackson.  It  has  been  a  ground  of  censure,  and  a  ground 
of  complaint  and  a  cause  of  excitement  here,  that  no  notice  was 
given  by  the  British  government  to  the  United  States,  that  they 
had  changed  their  construction  of  the  treaty.  That  is  all  right. 
It  is  a  good  ground  of  complaint,  provided  the  condition  holds. 
If  they  had  changed  the  construction  of  the  treaty,  they  ought  to 
have  given  us  notice ;  but  if  they  had  not  changed,  then  the  com- 
plaint of  want  of  notice  must  fail. 

It  has  been  complained  here  that  the  President  withheld  in- 
formation. It  is  enough  to  know  that  he  had  nothing  official 
worth  communicating ;  and  that,  when  requested,  he  furnished  all 
that  he  had. 

If  I  have  been  successful,  I  have  shown  the  Senate  that  there 
is  not  in  the  present  difficulties  about  the  fisheries  any  ground  of 
alarm — precisely  for  the  reason  that  nothing  new  has  occurred. 
That  circumstances  remain  just  exactly  as  they  were ;  that  there 
is  no  ground  to  apprehend  a  war,  because  the  dispositions  of  the 
British  government  remain  just  as  pacific  as  they  were  before ; 
and  the  dispositions  of  the  colonies  to  retaliate  were  well  known 
before  ;  and  that  if  there  were  reasons  for  censure  in  any  quarter, 
it  must  fall  elsewhere,  and  not  on  the  administration.  The  Presi- 
dent transferred  the  subject  to  Congress  last  December.  The 
Senate  implies  that  this  was  right,  because  it  rejects  the  idea  of 
negotiation.  Who,  then,  has  a  right  to  complain  ?  Is  it  Congress, 
that  the  executive  has  not  acted  ?  or  is  it  the  administration,  that 
Congress  has  been  silent  ? 

I  shall  be  told,  indeed,  that  the  notice  of  the  British  minister 


268  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

was  ambiguous.  But  it  was  no  more  ambiguous  than  the  well- 
understood  reserve  practiced  by  that  government  for  a  dozen  and 
more  years  past. 

The  executive  is  not  to  be  censured  for  not  having  resisted  the 
British  force,  for  there  has  been  none  there  in  hostility  to  resist. 
It  has  not  resented  indignity,  because  there  has  been  no  indignity 
offered.  This  is  so,  unless  the  government  of  the  United  States 
shall  claim  a  right  to  prescribe  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain 
what  portion  of  her  naval  force,  and  of  what  kind,  she  shall  main- 
tain on  this  station,  and  what  on  that.  I  should  like  to  see  how 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  would  regard  a  notice  from  the 
British  government,  that  we  must  send  not  more  than  one,  or  two, 
or  five,  or  ten,  war  steamers,  or  ships  of  the  line,  oif  the  coast  of 
Nicaragua,  or  into  the  Mediterranean.  The  executive  has  acted 
with  all  sufficient  promptness,  and,  when  it  seemed  necessary,  the 
"  Mississippi "  was  sent  into  those  waters.  From  accounts  received, 
it  appears  that  Commodore  Perry  found  the  British  authorities 
adhering  practically  to  our  own  construction  of  the  convention  of 
1818.  What  is  the  Mississippi  to  do?  She  must  not  protect 
fishermen  who  according  to  our  own  construction  are  encroaching ; 
and  those  who  are  not,  seem  to  need  no  protection. 

Sir,  it  has  been  complained  by  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Louisiana,  [Mr.  SOULE]  that  Mr.  "Webster  conceded  too  much  in 
his  official  notice  of  July  6,  1851.  Now,  here  is  Mr.  "Webster's 
language.  After  quoting  the  treaty,  he  says  : 

"  It  •would  appear  that,  by  a  strict  and  rigid  construction  of  this  article,  fishing  vessels 
of  the  United  States  are  precluded  from  entering  into  the  bays,"  <fcc. 

And,  in  the  same  connection,  he  adds : 

"  It  was  undoubtedly  an  oversight  in  the  convention  of  1818  to  make  so  large  a  con- 
cession to  England." 

That  is  to  say,  it  was  an  oversight  to  use  language  in  that  con- 
vention, which,  by  a  strict  and  rigid  construction,  might  be  made 
to  yield  the  freedom  of  the  great  bays. 

It  is  then  a  question  of  mere  verbal  criticism.  The  Secretary 
does  not  admit  that  the  rigorous  construction  is  the  just  and  true 
one.  And  so  he  does  not  admit  that  there  is  any  "  concession," 
in  the  sense  of  the  term  which  the  honorable  senator  adopts. 
Now,  other  honorable  senators,  if  I  recollect  aright — and  particu- 
larly that  very  accurate  and  exceedingly  strong-minded  senator, 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  DAVIS] — conceded  that 


THE  FISHERIES.  269 

the  treaty  would  l)ea/r  this  rigorous  construction,  insisting,  never- 
theless, just  as  the  Secretary  of  State  did,  that  it  was  a  forced  and 
unjust  one.  The  Senator  from  Louisiana  dissents  from  him  and 
other  senators,  and  maintains  that  it  will  not  bear  that  construc- 
tion at  all ;  because  he  says  that  the  other  portions  of  the  con- 
vention show  that  the  "  bays  "  described  must  be  bays  within  the 
British  dominions.  He  adds  that,  in  order  to  bring  a  bay  within 
the  dominion  of  any  power,  it  must  be  such  that  its  passage  to  the 
sea  shall  not  exceed  six  miles  in  width,  and  that  the  shores  on 
both  sides  belong  to  the  power  claiming  dominion  over  the  water. 
I  cannot  assent  to  the  force  of  this  argument  of  the  honorable 
Senator  from  Louisiana.  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  go  against  it, 
because  I  believe  it  is  getting  pretty  late  in  the  day  to  find  the 
Secretary  of  State  wrong  in  the  technical  and  legal  construction 
of  an  instrument.  Let  us  test  the  argument.  The  honorable 
senator  says,  that  where  the  government  occupies  both  sides  of 
the  bav,  and  where  the  strait  through  which  the  waters  of  the 

t/  /  o 

bay  flow  into  the  ocean  is  not  more  than  six  miles  wide,  then  there 
is  dominion  over  it. 

Now,  sir,  the  Gut  of  Canso  is  a  most  indispensable  communi- 
cation for  our  fishermen  from  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  the  Northum- 
berland Straits  and  to  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  for  a  reason 
which  any  one  will  very  readily  see  by  referring  to  the  map ;  yet 
the  Gut  of  Canso  is  only  three-quarters  of  a  mile  wide.  I  should 
be  sorry  to  adopt  an  argument  which  Great  Britain  might  turn 
against  us,  to  exclude  us  from  that  important  passage. 

Again  I  recall  the  honorable  senator's  argument,  viz. :  "  Two 
things  unite  to  give  a  country  dominion  over  an  inland  sea.  The 
first  is,  that  the  land  on  both  sides  must  be  within  the  dominion 
of  the  government  claiming  jurisdiction,  and  then  that  the  strait 
is  not  more  than  six  miles  wide  ;  but  that  if  the  strait  is  more 
than  six  miles  wide,  no  such  jurisdiction  can  be  claimed."  Now, 
sir,  this  argument  seems  to  me  to  prove  too  much.  I  think  it 
would  divest  the  United  States  of  the  harbor  of  Boston,  all  the 
land  around  which  belongs  to  Massachusetts  or  the  United  States, 
while  the  mouth  of  the  bay  is  six  miles'  wide.  It  would  surrender 
our  dominion  over  Long  Island  Sound — a  dominion  which  I  think 
the  State  of  New  York  and  the  United  States  would  not  willingly 
give  up.  It  would  surrender  Delaware  Bay ;  it  would  surrender, 
I  think,  Albemarle  Sound  and  the  Chesapeake  Bay ;  and  I  believe 
VOL.  1—18. 


270  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

it  would  surrender  the  Bay  of  Monterey,  and  perhaps  the  Bay  of 
San  Francisco,  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  been  laboring  for  the  last  fort- 
night under  a  strange  misapprehension  :  that  we  have  been  arguing 
here  the  freedom  of  the  seas — of  open  and  broad  seas — the  free- 
dom of  great  bays,  which  freedom  is  not  now  practically  denied, 
or  newly  brought  in  question.  It  is  true  that  the  British  govern- 
ment deny  our  right  to  enter  the  great  bays,  but  it  is  equally  true 
that  they  have  done  so  for  thirty  years ;  and  it  is  equally  true, 
moreover,  that,  for  thirty  years,  we  have  practically  exercised  the 
right,  and  that  we  are  exercising  it  now  just  as  we  have  done 
throughout  all  that  period. 

Xow,  how  has  all  this  confusion  come  into  the  Senate,  and  how 
is  it  that  we  are  alarming,  perplexing,  and  bewildering  the  country 
in  so  idle  and  cruel  a  manner  ?  What  ground  has  there  been  for 
assuming  that  the  British  government  had  determined  to  revise 
the  convention  of  1818,  and  to  enforce  its  construction  by  arms  ? 
On  what  did  senators  base  their  apprehensions  and  build  this 
excitement  ?  The  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan,  [Mr.  CASS] 
quoted  from  three  newspapers,  but  neither  of  them  was  an  organ 
of  the  Imperial  government,  nor  even  a  British  newspaper.  He 
quoted  from  merely  provincial  journals  ;  and  I  believe  that  two 
of  the  three  journals  were  anti-ministerial  papers.  Moreover, 
such  as  they  were,  they  did  not  assume  to  speak  by  authority,  but 
only  on  report,  and  by  way  of  conjecture.  Perhaps  with  those 
journals  "  the  wish  was  father  to  the  thought ;"  and  they  thought 
that  their  brethren  "  down  South  "  would  soon  take  a  new  lesson 
from  the  presence  of  an  assumed  extraordinary  force  in  the  fish- 
eries. My  honorable  friend  from  Louisiana  based  his  censure  on 
the  administration  for  possibly  negotiating  away  valuable  national 
rights  on  what  he  called  a  "  semi-official  announcement "  of  the 
fact  in  the  "  Telegraph"  a  small  newspaper  in  this  city,  which  is 
not,  as  I  understand,  an  organ  of  this  administration,  but  can  pre- 
tend to  no  more  than  a  desire,  perhaps,  if  it  should  survive,  as  I 
fear  it  may  not,  to  become  the  organ  of  a  future  one.  The  hon- 
orable senator,  however,  most  candidly  confessed,  when  called 
upon  to  name  the  paper,  that  he  called  the  announcement  "  semi- 
official," not  from  any  official  character  that  the  paper  bore,  but 
from  the  authoritative  manner  which  it  assumed.  A  case  may  be 
easily  made  out  against  the  administration,  if  you  will  quote  from 


THE  FISHERIES.  271 

the  papers,  friendly  or  otherwise,  which,  make  up  their  articles 
from  telegraph  reports.  Now,  if  provincial  newspapers  are 
authority  on  one  side  of  a  case,  I  am  sure  that  they  are  equally  so 
on  the  other.  I  am  very  happy  to  produce  such,  for  the  purpose 
of  restoring  the  equanimity  of  the  Senate.  I  read  from  the 
"  New  Brunswicker,"  a  provincial  paper,  of  the  date  of  August 
3d,  1852  : 

"  Nearly  all  the  American  papers  we  have  seen  labor  under  the  erroneous  impression 
that  the  Imperial  government  is  about  to  enforce  the  legal  construction  given  to  the  con- 
vention of  1818  by  the  crown  officers  of  England,  and  prevent  Americans  from  fishing, 
except  at  the  distance  of  three  marine  miles  outside  of  lines  drawn  from  headland  to  head- 
land. We  have  good  authority  for  asserting  that  such  is  not  the  case.  It  is  quite  true 
that  since  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  and  Advocate  General  of  England  was 
given  upon  the  case  submitted  by  the  legislature  of  Nova  Scotia,  the  government  of  that 
colony,  upon  the  urgent  request  of  the  fishermen,  has  evinced  a  desire  to  carry  out  the 
extreme  legal  view  of  that  convention ;  but  the  Imperial  government  has  steadily  refused 
to  take  that  view  of  the  case,  conceiving  that  American  fishermen  might  properly  claim 
to  fish  anywhere  outside  of  three  miles  of  any  part  of  the  coasts  of  British  North  Ame- 
rica, even  within  bays  more  than  six  miles  wide. 

"  Acting  under  this  impression,  the  Imperial  government  has  for  some  years  sent  a  few 
sloops  of  war,  or  other  smaller  armed  vessels,  to  cruise  during  the  fishing  season  along 
the  shores  of  the  colonies,  to  prevent  foreign  vessels  from  fishing  within  three  miles  of 
the  land.  But  these  vessels  had  each  such  a  large  extent  of  coast  to  watch  over,  that 
the  duty  of  keeping  foreign  fishermen  three  miles  from  the  land  was  indifferently  per- 
formed ;  and  the  trespasses  and  encroachments  have  consequently  increased  every  year, 
until  they  could  be  borne  no  longer.  The  colonies  found  they  must  take  the  affair  into 
their  own  hands,  or  else  abandon  their  shore  fisheries  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
who,  by  the  convention  of  1818,  '  renounced  forever  any  liberty  theretofore  enjoyed  or 
claimed  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  fish,  in  or  within  three  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts, 
bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of  her  Majesty's  dominions  in  America.' 

"  It  was  owing  to  these  determined  movements  on  the  part  of  the  Colonies,  that  the 
Imperial  government  resolved  upon  giving  efficient  assistance  to  protect  the  Nortli  Ame- 
rican fisheries ;  and  this  assistance  was  offered,  as  our  neighbors  will  soon  learn,  not  with 
the  view  of  enforcing  the  rigid  legal  construction  given  to  the  convention,  but  absolutely 
to  prevent  the  Colonial  cruisers  from  carrying  out  that  very  construction,  thereby  incur- 
ring the  risk  of  unpleasant  collisions  with  the  vessels  of  a  foreign  but  friendly  power.  It 
was  to  insure  the  continuance  of  peace,  and  prevent  the  possibility  of  hostile  encounters, 
that  the  Imperial  government  had  dispatched  its  vessels  to  the  shores  of  North  Ame- 
rica." 

Sir,  there  was  a  presumption,  which  it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to 
have  admitted,  that  would  have  prevailed  against  the  sounding 
forth  of  these  idle  alarms.  For  one,  I  want  no  evidence  that  Eng- 
land desires  and  is  determined  to  maintain  her  power  wherever 
she  can,  and  to  fortify  and  extend  it  over  the  world  wherever  she 
may,  consistently  with  the  rights  of  other  nations,  and,  perhaps, 
without  a  very  careful  regard,  in  all  >  instances,  to  those  rights. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  I  want  no  evidence  to  satisfy  me  that 
England  desires  peace  with  the  United  States. 

The  vast  commerce  of  the  world  is  practically  divided  between 
these  two  capital  maritime  powers,  and  is  as  yet  largely  in  the 


272  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

hands  of  England.  The  British  nation  is  a  mercantile  one.  "We 
also  are  a  mercantile  people  with  whom  England  deals  largely, 
and  we  are  agents  in  carrying  on  a  large  portion  of  the  commerce 
of  England  with  other  countries.  The  trade  between  the  two 
countries  employs  10,000  American  vessels  and  9,000  British  ves- 
sels, with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  three  millions  of  tons.  The 
comfort  and  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  British  nation  depends, 
as  do  our  own  largely,  on  the  preservation  of  that  commerce. 
"War  between  the  two  nations  would  sweep  it  from  the  ocean. 
The  ministry  that  should  involve  that  nation  in  war  with  the  United 
States,  would  be  driven  from  power  by  public  indignation,  arising 
out  of  universal  calamity  and  distress. 

England  is  a  manufacturer.  Her  imports  in  all  her  domains 
are  valued  by  hundred  of  millions  annually,  and  her  exports  are 
equivalent.  She  needs  raw  materials — cotton  and  wool  and  other 
articles,  and  bread-stuffs  and  provisions.  And  to  get  these,  while 
extending  the  markets  for  her  manufactures,  she  bends  all  the 
policy  of  her  commercial  and  fiscal  systems.  We  furnish  those 
indispensable  supplies  lavishly,  and  we  consume  her  fabrics  of 
iron,  cotton,  flax,  wool,  silver,  gold,  every  thing  in  preference  to 
manufacturing  for  ourselves.  A  war  with  the  United  States 
would  close  these  relations  at  once,  and  the  artisans  and  laborers 
of  England  would  be  involved  in  calamities  such  as  they  have 
never  yet  known. 

England  is  a  creditor  nation.  We  are  debtors  to  her.  Heaven 
knows  how  much  capital  is  not  accumulated  in  England.  It  is  a 
capital  that  has  been  gathered  through  a  thousand  years,  by  a  na- 
tion of  wonderful  and  world-searching  sagacity,  industry,  and  en- 
terprise. "We  employ  of  that  capital  all  that  we  can  obtain,  for 
we  have  need  of  it  all,  to  bring  at  once  into  sudden  development 
and  perfection  vast  and  perpetually-extending  regions,  which,  for 
near  6,000  years,  were,  by  civilized  man,  untrodden  and  unknown. 
A  large  portion  of  our  public  debt  is  owned  in  England.  Large 
masses  of  our  state  debts  are  owned  there.  In  addition  to  that, 
our  merchants  are  indebted  to  England  I  know  not  how  much  ; 
but  I  have  known  the  time  when  the  whole  public  and  private 
debt  of  the  United  States,  owed  to  British  subjects,  was  not  less 
than  $250,000,000.  The  interest  on  this  debt  constitutes  the  sup- 
port of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  British  community. 

England,  then,  cannot  wisely  desire,  nor  safely  dare,  a  war  with 


THE  FISHERIES.  273 

the  United  States.  She  knows  all  this,  and  more :  that  war  with 
the  United  States,  about  these  fisheries,  would  find  the  United 
States  able  to  surround  the  British  colonies.  She  would  find  that 
the  dream  of  conquest  of  those  colonies,  which  broke  upon  us, 
even  in  the  dawn  of  the  revolution,  when  we  tendered  them  an 
invitation  to  join  their  fortunes  with  ours,  and  followed  it  with  the 
sword ;  that  dream,  which  returned  again  in  1812,  when  we 
attempted  to  subjugate  them  by  force,  would  come  over  us  again  ; 
and  that  now,  when  we  have  matured  the  strength  to  take  them, 
we  should  find  the  provinces  willingly  consenting  to  captivity.  A 
war  about  these  fisheries  would  be  a  war  which  would  result  either 
in  the  independence  of  the  British  provinces,  or  in  their  annexa- 
tion to  the  United  States.  I  devoutly  pray  God  that  that  consum- 
mation may  come ;  the  sooner  the  better ;  but  I  do  not  desire  it 
at  the  cost  of  wTar,  or  of  injustice.  I  am  content  to  wait  for  the 
ripened  fruit  which  must  fall.  I  know  the  wisdom  of  England  too 
well  to  believe  that  she  would  hazard  shaking  that  fruit  into  our 
hands,  for  all  that  she  could  hope  to  gain  by  insisting  on,  or  en- 
forcing with  armed  power,  her  rigorous  construction  of  the  con- 
vention concerning  the  colonial  fisheries. 

Sir,  what  is  the  condition  of  England  for  a  war  with  the  United 
States  at  this  moment  ?  Her  power  has  been  extended  over  the 
East,  and  she  employs  nearly  all  her  armies  in  India,  and  in  Africa, 
to  maintain  herself  against  the  natives  of  the  one  continent  and 
the  savages  of  the  other.  At  this  very  moment,  those  who  under- 
stand her  condition  best,  say  that  her  home  defences  are  inade- 
quate to  protect  her  against  an  invasion  by  France.  Wise  and 
able  statesmen,  now  representing  the  ruling  and  prevailing  interest 
of  the  country,  demand  of  the  Parliament  to  add  to  their  defences, 
by  extending  and  reorganizing  the  militia ;  and  it  is  a  great  party 
question  in  that  kingdom,  whether  the  safety  of  England  shall  be 
secured  by  such  an  increase,  or  whether  it  shall  be  left  exposed  to 
an  invader. 

"What  is  the  condition  of  English  power  in  Canada,  and  in  the 
British  provinces  ?  England  has  never,  since  the  war  of  1812, 
had  so  small  a  military  force  in  those  provinces  as  now.  The 
Imperial  government  has  maintained  heretofore  some  show  of 
naval  defence  upon  our  lakes.  But  within  the  last  six  months  it 
has  broken  up  the  whole  naval  force  there,  and  now  none  what- 
ever exists.  While  thus  showing  the  supposed  motives  to  peace 


274  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  I  confess  that  peace  is  no  less  the 
interest  and  the  instinct  of  our  own  country.  The  United  States 
might  aggrandize  themselves  by  war,  but  they  are  sure  to  be  ag- 
grandized by  peace.  I  thank  God  that  the  peace  of  the  -world  is 
largely  subject  to  the  control  of  these  two  great  powers;  and  that, 
while  they  have  common  dispositions  toward  harmony,  neither  has 
need  of  war  to  establish  its  character  for  firmness  or  for  courage. 
Each  has  had  enough  of 

"  The  camp,  the  host,  the  fight,  the  conqueror's  career." 

Some  honorable  senators  have  averred  that  they  could  not  trust 
this  administration,  because  of  its  antecedents ;  that  Britain  was 
induced  to  assume  a  bold  tone  on  this  question,  by  triumphs  which 
she  had  obtained  in  negotiations  with  this  administration.  One 
general  remark  meets  all  these  objections ;  and  that  is,  that  they 
are  extraneous  issues,  each  one  sufficient  for  a  discussion  in  itself. 
Any  senator,  who  thinks  the  interests  of  the  country  have  been 
sacrificed  can  bring  it  before  the  Senate  and  the  country,  and  pre- 
sent it  distinctly  for  examination. 

But,  sir,  what  are  these  charges  in  regard  to  Cuba  ?  Why,  as  I 
understand,  that  this  administration  interposed  to  prevent  an  ex- 
pedition, which  it  was  alleged  was  fitted  out  in  this  country  for 
that  island,  in  violation  of  our  neutrality  laws.  "Was  this  all  ?  If 
it  was,  let  senators  dissatisfied  repeal  the  neutrality  laws  if  they 
can,  and  not  censure  the  President  for  executing  them.  What 
complaint  is  made  in  regard  to  Mexico  ?  Why,  that  the  Secretary 
of  State  employed  a  British  banker,  as  an  agent,  to  pay  the  instal- 
ments on  the  debt  of  this  government,  payable  in  the  city  of 
Mexico.  I  see  nothing  wrong  in  that.  An  agent  was  necessary, 
and  a  foreign  one.  I  believe  the  money  was  honestly  paid  to 
Mexico,  and  that  she  was  satisfied.  But  it  is  said  that  British 
creditors  got  a  portion  of  the  money.  I  know  not  what  obliga- 
tions we  were  under  to  take  measures  to  defeat  British  creditors, 
or  any  others,  or  the  British  government,  from  obtaining  satisfac- 
tion of  any  of  their  debtors.  Indeed,  in  some  of  the  states,  there 
is  a  system  of  remedies  founded  on  the  principle  that  the  creditor 
has  a  right  to  attach  money  belonging  to  his  debtor  in  transitu. 

What  has  the  administration  done,  or  neglected  to  do,  in  regard 
to  the  Sandwich  Islands?  It  is  understood  that  this  imagined 
shortcoming  of  the  administration  consists  in  the  President's  not 


THE  FISHERIES.  275 

having  entertained,  as  is  supposed,  a  proposition  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  to  put  themselves  under  the  pro- 
tection or  subject  themselves  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States.  I  submit  to  honorable  senators,  that  they  begin  at  the 
wrong  end  :  It  was  settled  by  the  last  precedent  that  the  function 
of  annexing  belonged,  not  to  the  President,  but  to  Congress.  Con- 
gress have  power  "  to  admit  new  states."  Let  senators  who  desire 
annexation,  introduce  the  bill.  I  am  ready  to  entertain  the  ques- 
tion for  examination,  and  to  act  as  prudence,  wisdom,  and  the 
great  interests  of  the  country,  shall  be  found  to  require.  But  I 
cannot  prejudge  a  question  so  great,  so  momentous. 

These  alleged  and  mistaken  triumphs  of  England,  then,  form  no 
cumulative  evidence  to  support  the  censures  bestowed  upon  the 
administration  in  regard  to  the  transaction  in  question. 

And,  now,  what  is  the  real  question  before  Congress  in  regard 
to  these  fisheries  ?  That  question  is  simply  this :  The  British  colo- 
nies insist  upon  the  rigorous  construction  of  the  convention  of 
1818,  so  as  to  exclude  us  from  entering  the  large  British  bays,  and 
distract  and  annoy  our  fishermen  ;  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States  resist  that  construction,  and  they  never  will  yield  it.  The 
British  government  approve  in  words,  and  yet,  so  far  as  their  acts 
are  concerned,  refuse  to  support  it.  The  controversy  is  thirty- 
years  old,  and  seems  an  endless  one.  While  that  question  is  kept 
up,  the  American  fisheries,  which  were  once  in  a  most  prosperous 
condition,  are  comparatively  stationary  or  declining,  although  sup- 
ported by  large  bounties.  At  the  same  time,  the  provincial  fish- 
eries are  gaining  in  the  quantity  of  fish  exported  to  this  country, 
and  largely  gaining  in  their  exportations  abroad.  In  1844,  those 
colonies  sent  us  products  of  the  fishery  valued  at  $264,000 ;  in 
1851,  the  value  of  their  fish  which  we  received  was  $781,000.  In 
1844,  they  exported  through  our  ports,  to  other  countries,  fish 
valued  at  $3,000  ;  and  1851,  their  exported  products  were  valued 
at  $173,000 ! 

Our  fishermen  want  all  that  our  own  construction  of  the  con- 
vention gives  them,  and  want  and  must  have  more — they  want 
and  must  have  the  privileges  of  fishing  within  the  three  inhibited 
miles,  and  of  curing  fish  on  the  shore. 

Consider  for  a  moment  the  magnitude  of  the  interest  of  the 
fisheries — that  it  employs  a  fleet  of  twelve  hundred  sail,  managed 
by  twelve  thousand  men,  and  a  capital  of  four  millions  of  dollars ; 


276  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  that,  together  with  the  whale  fishery,  it  constitutes  the  basis 
of  our  naval  power. 

Shall  we  not  try  to  quiet  and  end  this  long  and  injurious  dis- 
pute, and  to  procure  for  the  fishermen  not  only  peace  and  security, 
but  also  an  extension  of  the  fishing  ground  and  its  privileges  ? 
That  is  the  question,  and  I  am  for  the  fishermen. 

Sir,  there  ought  to  be  a  decision  on  this  matter  some  time  or 
other.  At  all  events,  delay  is  injurious  and  dangerous.  Wo 
think  the  right  is  with  us,  and  so  I  am  sure  it  is.  But  neverthe- 
less it  is  a  question.  The  British  government  are  our  equals,  and 
they  hold  it  an  open  question.  They  quote  American  authorities, 
especially  that  of  Chancellor  Kent,  against  us.  This  shows  us 
that  they  are  as  confident  in  maintaining  their  position  as  we  are 
in  maintaining  ours.  We  can  dictate  no  terms  to  Great  Britain. 
We  will  not  allow  her  to  dictate  terms  to  us. 

Now,  sir,  can  we,  in  any  event,  yield  our  right  to  navigate  the 
Gut  of  Canso,  and  with  it  the  fisheries  of  the  Straits  of  Northum- 
berland ?  No !  Can  wTe  enjoy  our  fisheries  as  we  ought  while 
these  disputes  exist  ?  No  !  Are  we  to  leave  them  open,  and,  if 
so,  shall  our  fisheries  be  carried  on  hereafter  under  the  surveillance 
of  an  armed  British  squadron,  and  the  guardianship  of  a  naval 
fleet  of  our  own  ? 

The  indications  are  abundant  that  it  is  the  wish  of  the  Senate 
that  the  Executive  should  not  treat  upon  this  subject,  and  I  think 
wisely.  I  agree  on  that  point  with  my  honorable  and  distinguished 
friend  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  DAVIS.]  What  the  colonies  re- 
quire is  some  modification  of  commercial  regulations  which  may 
afiect  the  revenue.  This  is  a  subject  proper  to  be  acted  upon  by 
Congress,  not  by  the  President,  if  it  is  to  be  acted  upon  at  all.  It 
must  not  be  done  by  treaty.  We  seem  to  have  courted  the  re- 
sponsibility, and  it  rests  upon  us.  Let  us  no  longer  excite  our- 
selves and  agitate  the  country  with  unavailing  debates  ;  but  let  us 
address  ourselves  to  the  relief  of  the  fishermen,  and  to  the  im- 
provement of  our  commerce. 

Now,  sir,  there  is  only  one  way  that  Congress  can  act ;  and  that 
is  by  reciprocal  legislation  with  the  British  Parliament  or  the 
British  colonies  of  some  sort.  I  commit  myself  to  no  particular 
scheme,  or  project  of  reciprocal  legislation,  and  certainly  to  nono 
injurious  to  any  agricultural  or  manufacturing  interest.  I,  for 
one,  will  give  my  poor  opinion  upon  the  subject ;  and  it  is  this  : 


THE  FISHERIES.  277 

That  so  long  hereafter  as  any  force  shall  be  maintained  in  those 
north-eastern  waters,  an  equal  naval  force  must  be  maintained 
there  by  ourselves.  When  Great  Britain  shall  diminish  or  with- 
draw her  armed  force,  we  ought  to  diminish  or  withdraw  our  own ; 
and  that  in  the  mean  time  a  commission  ought  to  be  raised,  or 
some  appropriate  committee  of  this  body — the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations,  the  Committee  on  Finance,  or  the  Committee  on 
Commerce — should  be  charged  to  ascertain  whether  there  cannot 
be  some  measure  adopted  by  reciprocal  legislation  to  adjust  these 
difficulties  and  enlarge  the  rights  of  our  fishermen,  consistently 
with  all  the  existing  interests  of  the  United  States. 


278  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 


CONTESTED    SEAT    OF    AECIIIBALD    DIXON. 

DECEMBER    20,    1852. 

MR.  PRESIDENT  : — Since  I  adressed  the  Senate  in  favor  of  allow- 
ing Mr.  Dixon  to  take  the  seat  he  claims,  provisionally,  it  has  been 
pleased  to  receive  for  consideration  a  proposition  to  admit  him, 
without  reservation,  as  a  Senator  from  Kentucky. 

The  action  of  the  Senate,  at  least  iii  one  event,  will  be  canvassed 
throughout  the  country,  and  for  many  years ;  I  shall  therefore 
assign  the  reasons  for  my  vote. 

The  question  involves  a  construction  of  the  Constitution. 

The  only  portions  of  the  Constitution  touching  the  case  are 
these : 

"  ART.  1,  SEC.  3.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  two  senators 
from  each  state,  chosen  by  the  legislature  thereof,  for  six  years."  *  *  *  "2.  Im- 
mediately after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  consequence  of  the  first  election,  they  shall 
be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be  into  three  classes.  The  seats  of  the  senators  of  the 
first  class  shall  be  vacated  at  the  expiration  of  the  second  year ;  of  the  second  class,  at 
the  expiration  of  the  fourth  year,  and  of  the  third  class,  at  the  expiration  of  the  sixth  year ; 
so  that  one  third  may  be  chosen  every  second  year  ;  and  if  vacancies  happen  by  resigna- 
tion, or  otherwise,  during  the  recess  of  the  legislature  of  any  state,  the  executive  thereof 
may  make  temporary  appointments  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  legislature,  which  shall 
then  fill  sucli  vacancies. 

"  SEC.  4.  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators  and  re- 
presentatives, shall  be  prescribed  in  each  state  by  the  legislature  thereof;  but  the  Congress 
may  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of 
choosing  senators." 

Kentucky  has  prescribed  in  this  matter  for  herself,  and  Congress 
has  not,  at  any  time,  by  law,  "  made  or  altered  any  regulations  " 
concerning  it. 

The  following  facts  make  up  the  case.  On  the  17th  of  December, 
1851,  Henry  Clay  was  a  Senator  from  Kentucky,  chosen  by  the 
legislature,  for  six  years,  which  would  have  expired  on  the  3d  of 
March,  1855.  Being  so  a  Senator,  he  resigned  by  a  communica- 
tion to  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky,  declaring  that  it  was  to  take 


CONTESTED  SEAT  OF  MR.  DIXON.  279 

effect  on  the  first  Monday  in  September,  1852.  The  legislature, 
then  in  session,  received  the  resignation,  and  chose  Mr.  Dixon  to 
fill  the  vacancy  thus  to  occur,  from  the  first  Monday  in  September, 
1852,  to  the  3d  day  of  March,  1855.  The  legislature  then  ad- 
journed. On  the  29th  day  of  June,  1852,  during  the  recess  of  the 
Legislature  of  Kentucky,  Mr.  Clay  died,  and  the  governor  of  that 
state  made  a  "  temporary  appointment  "  of  Mr;  Meriwether  as  a 
senator  from  Kentucky,  to  hold  the  seat  until  tlie  ji/rnt  Monday 
of  September,  1852.  Mr.  Meriwether  immediately  took  the  vacant 
seat,  and  held  it  until  the  Senate  adjourned  on  the  last  day  of 
August,  1852.  On  the  6th  of  December,  1852,  the  Senate  re-as- 
assembles,  Mr.  Meriwether  does  not  appear,  and  Mr.  Dixon  ap- 
pears and  presents  his  credentials,  and  claims  the  vacant  scat. 

Manifestly,  Mr.  Dixon  is  one  of  two  senators  "chosen  by  the 
Legislature  "  of  Kentucky,  "  for  six  years,"  and  he  was  chosen  to 
fill  a  vacancy  which  has  happened  in  the  term  of  Mr.  Clay. 

The  whole  question  turns  on  the  point,  How  did  this  vacancy 
happen?  Mr.  Clay  resigned,  fixing  the  first  Monday  of  September 
as  the  day  when  he  should  vacate  his  seat,  and  died,  nevertheless, 
a  Senator  before  that  day  arrived.  Mr.  Dixon  was  appointed  by 
the  legislature  when  in  session,  before  not  only  the  day  which 
Mr.  Clay's  resignation  fixed  for  his  retirement,  but  also  before 
Mr.  Clay's  death. 

We,  who  maintain  Mr.  Dixon's  title,  insist  that  the  vacancy  hap- 
pened by  Mr.  Clay's  resignation.  On  the  contrary,  those  who 
deny  Mr.  Dixon's  title,  insist  that  the  vacancy  happened  by  Mr. 
Clay's  death. 

Four  questions  arise  :  First,  can  a  senator  resign  ?  Second, 
can  a  senator  resigning  appoint  a  future  day  for  his  retirement 
from  the  Senate  ? 

Third.  Can  the  proper  appointing  power  receive  such  a  resigna- 
tion, and  prospectively  fill  the  vacancy? 

Fourth.  If  the  legislature  so  prospectively  fill  the  vacancy,  can 
the  appointment  be  defeated  ly  the  death  of  the  resigning  senator 
before  the  arrival  of  the  day  fixed  for  his  retirement  from  the 
Senate  ? 

If  a  senator  can  resign,  and  can  so  resign  prospectively,  and  if 
the  legislature  can  so  fill  the  vacancy  prospectively,  and  if  their 
action  cannot  be  defeated  by  the  death  of  the  resigning  senator, 
then  Mr.  Dixon's  title  is  good,  valid,  and  complete. 


280  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

The  first  question  is  expressly  decided  by  the  Constitution,  which 
declares  that  vacancies  may  "  happen  by  resignation." 

The  second  question  is  decided  by  an  unbroken  succession  of 
precedents  from  the  foundation  of  the  government.  Mr.  Bledsoe 
so  resigned,  fixing  a  future  day ;  so  did  Mr.  Clay  in  1842,  and  so 
did  Mr.  Berrien  in  1852,  and  so  did  Mr.  Foote  in  1852. 

The  third  question  is  answered  with  equal  distinctness  by  pre- 
cedents. The  Legislature  of  Kentucky  prospectively  filled  the 
vacancy  made  by  Mr.  Clay's  resignation  in  1842  ;  the  Governor  of 
Georgia  prospectively  filled  the  vacancy  of  Mr.  Berrien  in  1852 ; 
and  the  Governor  or  Legislature  of  Mississippi  prospectively  filled 
the  vacancy  of  Mr.  Foote  in  1852. 

The  only  question  remaining  is  the  fourth :  Can  the  death  of 
the  resigning  senator  after  the  legislature  has  prospectively  filled 
the  vacancy,  and  before  the  day  fixed  for  his  retirement,  defeat 
the  appointment  of  his  successor  already  made  ? 

No  such  event  has  happened  before  this,  and  so  there  is  no  pre- 
cedent. On  each  side  we  are  left  to  reason  a  priori. 

1st.  Now,  it  is  clear  that  the  resignation  and  appointment  are 
not  on  any  expressed  condition  that  the  resigning  senator  shall  live 
until  the  day  fixed  for  his  retirement ;  but  it  is,  on  the  contrary, 
on  its  face  unconditional  and  absolute.  There  are  two  parties, 
and  only  two  parties,  to  the  act — the  senator  who  resigns  and  the 
state  which  receives  the  resignation  and  appoints  the  successor. 
Both  these  parties  agree  that  the  resignation  shall  be  unconditional 
and  absolute  on  the  face  of  the  transaction.- 

2d.  Has  the  resigning  senator  any  reserved  power  over  his 
resignation,  arising  from  implication  of  law  after  delivering  or 
publishing  it,  to  revoke  it  or  to  defeat  the  prospective  appoint- 
ment of  his  successor  already  made  ?  No !  In  Bledsoe's  case, 
that  senator,  when  the  day  fixed  for  his  retirement  arrived,  de- 
clared his  purpose  to  revoke  his  resignation,  and  to  retain  the  seat. 
The  Senate  decided  that  he  could  not ;  that  his  resignation  was 
beyond  his  control,  and  was  absolute. 

If  the  retiring  senator  cannot  revoke  his  resignation,  and  so  de- 
feat the  prospective  appointment  of  his  successor  already  made, 
then  it  is  equally  clear  that  he  cannot,  by  giving  up  his  seat  and 
retiring  before  the  day  fixed  by  his  previous  resignation,  annul 
the  effect  of  that  act,  or  defeat  the  prospective  appointment  of  his 
successor  already  made  ;  for  if  he  could,  this  would  be  to  allow 


CONTESTED  SEAT.  281 

that  he  could  do  in  one  way  what  he  could  not  do  in  another ; 
that  he  could  do  by  indirection  what  he  could  not  do  directly. 

4th.  What  is  the  reason  why  the  resigning  senator  may  not,  by  re- 
vocation, or  by  another  act  of  resignation  in  the  interval,  defeat  the 
prospective  appointment  of  his  successor  already  made  ?  It  is  be- 
cause the  act  of  resignation,  when  delivered  or  published,  and 
especially  when  received  and  made  the  foundation  of  the  prospec- 
tive appointment  of  his  successor,  is  a  fait  accompli,— a  vacancy 
is  perfectly  made  and  is  perfectly  filled.  Whatever  afterward 
may  be  done  or  may  happen,  the  appointed  successor  has  a  title 
to  the  place  to  which  he  is  thus  appointed,  which  is  necessarily 
indefeasible. 

5th.  And  now,  if  the  retiring  senator  cannot  defeat  the  prospec- 
tive appointment  of  his  successor,  neither  by  revoking  his  resigna- 
tion nor  by  a  second  and  intermediate  act  of  resignation,  then  he 
cannot  defeat  it  by  dying,  whether  his  death  be  voluntary  or  in- 
voluntary. The  policy  of  the  constitution  is  the  same  in  whatever 
way  the  obstruction  to  the  act  of  the  state  appointing  the  successor 
may  offer  itself.  The  first  resignation  was  complete  and  indefeasi- 
ble, and  the  appointment  of  the  successor  is  also  complete  and 
indefeasible. 

I  proceed  to  notice  the  objections  to  this  view.  First,  that  by 
dying  before  the  day  fixed  for  retiring,  the  resigning  senator 
makes  a  vacancy  which  renders  the  happening  of  the  one  contem- 
plated in,  and  consequent  upon,  his  resignation  impossible.  I 
reply,  he  does  not  make  it  impossible.  Certainly,  when  the  day 
fixed  arrives,  the  seat  is  vacant  equally,  whether  the  resigning 
senator  is  dead  or  then  retires.  He  does  one  of  two  things — either, 
first,  he  makes  an  interruption  of  representation  which  cannot  be 
filled  up  until  the  day  for  his  successor  to  enter  shall  arrive ;  or, 
second,  he  makes  a  "  temporary  vacancy  "  which  can  be  filled  up 
by  the  competent  authority  until  the  day  when  the  successor  can 
enter  shall  have  arrived.  This  latter  view  has  been  adopted  by 
the  Governor  of  Kentucky,  in  his  temporary  appointment  of  Mr. 
Meri wether,  and  seems  unobjectionable. 

2d.  It  is  objected  that  the  happening  of  a  vacancy  cannot  be 
divided  into  two  parts — one  a  resignation  prospective,  and  the 
other  an  ulterior  retirement  from  office  ;  that  the  transaction  is  a 
whole,  and  all  its  parts  must  occur,  or  the  resignation  will  be 
void. 


282  SPEECHES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

But  the  constitution  manifestly  contemplates  the  happening  of 
two  vacancies  by  such  a  division.  All  the  senators  first  chosen, 
were  chosen  for  six  years.  The  constitution  declared  that  the 
seats  of  one-third  of  them  should  be  vacated  at  the  expiration  of 
two  years.  But  what  if  one  of  that  one-third  died  before  that 
day  ?  Why,  his  seat  nevertheless  was  vacated  at  the  expiration 
of  the  two  years,  but  in  the  mean  time  it  was  also  vacated,  and  a 
temporary  appointment  was  made  to  fill  the  temporary  vacancy 
until  the  happening  of  the  regular  vacancy  at  the  end  of  the  two 
years ;  and  so  we  practice  on  the  same  principle  now,  vacating 
one-third  of  the  Senate  absolutely  every  two  years. 

3d.  But  it  is  said  that  if  a  senator  may  resign  and  fix  a  day  in 
future  one  month  distant,  he  may  fix  one  five  years  distant.  And 
it  is  asked  whether  the  Legislature,  being  in  session  when  such  a 
resignation  is  received,  can  fill  the  vacancy  which  is  so  postponed 
in  effect  for  five  years — to  the  prejudice  of  the  right  of  the  legisla- 
tures assembling  afterward  and  before  the  day  limited  ?  I  reply, 
that  is  a  question  which  does  not  arise  here.  It  is  enough  that  the 
senator  has  a  right  to  say  to  his  state,  I  will  serve  you  one,  or  two- 
or  three,  or  four  years,  or  five  years,  and  no  longer.  And  the 
state  has  a  right  to  say  we  will  accept  your  services  for  that  time, 
and  dismiss  you  afterward.  If  a  question  shall  arise  what  legisla- 
ture meeting  within  the  period  has  the  right  to  fill  the  vacancy, 
it  can  then  be  met — it  has  not  arisen  here. 

Thus  the  legality  of  Mr.  Dixon's  title  seems  to  result  from  the 
constitution  and  the  precedents ;  and  assuming  this  view,  the  case 
presents  the  not  unfrequent  one  of  an  ascertained  vacancy  occur- 
ring at  a  future  day,  and  anticipated  and  filled,  and  an  intervening 
temporary  vacancy  also  temporarily  filled  and  expired.  If  this 
view  is  correct,  it  is  unnecessary  to  examine  the  pretensions  set 
up,  not  by  Mr.  Merriwether,  but  in  his  behalf  by  senators. 

Mr.  President,  this  question  has  bearings  upon  the  present  and 
the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  also  upon  the  future  and  the  whole 
Union.  A  rejection  of  Mr.  Dixon,  who  comes  with  a  plenary 
commission  unanimously  confirmed  by  the  Legislature  and  Gov- 
ernor of  Kentucky,  and  an  admission,  on  the  contrary,  of  Mr. 
Merriwether,  who  not  only  presents  no  such  commission,  but  pre- 
sents no  claim,  and  does  not  even  appear,  will,  I  think,  deeply 
disturb  Kentucky  and  alarm  all  the  other  states.  This  alarm  will 
be  increased  by  the  fact  that  the  proceeding  will  operate  to 


CONTESTED  SEAT.  283 

strengthen  and  increase  the  provisional  prerogatives  of  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  states  at  the  expense  of  the  power  conferred  by  the 
constitution  on  the  legislatures  of  the  states ;  for  nothing  is  clearer 
than  that  the  power  conferred  on  the  governors  to  fill  vacancies 
was  designed  to  be  occasional,  and  exceptional,  and  subordinate  to 
that  devolved  on  the  legislatures,  which  was  designed  to  be  gene- 
ral, complete,  and  supreme. 

You  will  also  excite  new  and  painful  apprehensions  of  another 
and  even  more  grave  kind.  The  House  of  Representatives  is  a 
legislative  assembly,  drawn  out  by  representation  of  the  whole 
Union  as  one  undivided  country  and  people  ;  and  the  constitution 
of  that  House  is  a  great  centripetal  power  acting  toward  consoli- 
dation. But  the  Senate  is  composed  of  an  equal  delegation  of  the 
several  states,  appointed  by  the  states.  Senators  are  in  a  manner 
ambassadors  of  the  states,  and  the  control  exercised  by  the  states 
in  their  appointment,  without  interference  from  the  center,  con- 
stitutes a  centrifugal  force  important  to  the  preservation  of  the 
states  in  their  qualified,  constitutional  independence.  Hitherto 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  has  received  whomsoever  have 
been  sent  by  the  states,  only  examining  their  qualifications  when 
desired,  or  deciding  judicially  between  contestants.  But  if  now 
we  reject  one  who  is  sent  with  full  authority,  and  whose  title  is 
not  denied  from  without  this  body,  and  call  in  one  who  is  not  sent 
with  any  such  authority,  we  shall  shake  the  confidence  which  has 
hitherto  been  enjoyed  by  the  Senate,  and  raise  alarms  for  the 
safety  of  the  states,  and  thus  weaken  the  bonds  of  the  Union. 

NOTE. — The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  on  the  day  the 
above  speech  was  made.  The  question  being  taken  on  the  resolution,  declaring  Mr. 
DIXON  duly  elected  Senator  from  Kentucky,  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  resignation 
of  Mr.  CLAY,  and  that  he  be  now  admitted  to  his  seat,  was  adopted.  Yeas  27 — Nays 
1 6 — as  follows : 

AYES — Messrs.  Adams,  Atchison,  Badger,  Bell,  Brooke,  Butler,  Chase,  Clarke,  Cooper, 
Davis,  Dawson,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Fisk,  Geyer,  Hale,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  Miller,  Morton, 
Pearce,  Rusk,  Seward,  Smith,  Spruance,  Sumner,  Underwood,  Upham,  Wade. 

NAYS — Messrs.  Bayard,  Borland,  Bradbury,  Bright,  Cass,  Cathcart,  De  Saussure, 
Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Douglas,  Downes,  Felch,  Gwin,  Mason,  Morris,  Toucey,  Weller. 

Mr.  DIXON  was  then  sworn  in,  and  the  Senate  adjourned. — ED. 


DEBATES 

THE   SENATE   OF   THE  UNITED   STATES 


KEY.   THEOBALD    MATTHEW.* 

DECEMBER    20,    1849. 

I  THINK,  sir,  that  men  often  disagree  in  regard  to  the  merit  of 
the  living,  but  seldom  differ  in  regard  to  the  merit  of  the  dead. 
This  capitol,  its  halls,  its  chambers,  and  its  grounds,  are  filled  with 
statuary  memorials  of  the  illustrious  benefactors  of  mankind,  of 
other  nations  as  well  as  of  our  own;  and  these  memorials  are 
looked  upon  with  pleasure  and  satisfaction  by  all  the  living.  But 
there  is  a  painful  reflection  that  occurs  to  us  when  we  raise  these 
monuments  in  honor  of  the  dead.  They  can  convey  no  encour- 
agement to  the  benefactor  in  the  prosecution  of  his  philanthropic 
enterprises.  They  convey  to  him  no  sympathy  in  the  sufferings 
which  he  endures.  •  The  resolution  before  the  Senate  presents  a 
very  different  occasion — an  occasion  in  which  we  can,  without 
danger  of  error,  recognize  a  public  benefactor — a  benefactor  of 
mankind ;  and  in  wyhich  the  homage  which  is  offered  is  unalloyed 
by  the  painful  reflection  that  marble  cannot  hear  and  cannot  feel. 

I  need  no  argument  to  convince  me  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
establish  any  connection  between  this  illustrious  benefactor  of  the 
human  race  and  our  own  country,  in  order  to  entitle  him  to  the 
compliment  which  it  is  proposed  to  offer  him,  because  I  regard 
the  interests  of  the  American  nation  as  the  interests  of  humanity ; 
and  whoever,  in  any  part  of  the  globe,  has  relieved  the  condition 
of  any  portion  of  the  human  race,  I  look  upon  as  entitled  to  the 
approbation  and  the  gratitude  of  the  American  nation. 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  inviting  Father  Matthew  to  a  seat  on  the  floor  of  the  Sen 
Ate,  -which  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  33  to  18. — Ed. 


DISCIPLINE  IN  THE  NAVY.  285 

I  have  said  that  there  was  no  danger  of  error.  A  nation,  a 
race,  interesting  from  consanguinity — interesting  by  a  thousand 
ties — finds  its  virtues  increased,  and  the  condition  of  its  people 
meliorated,  by  the  labors  of  Theobald  Matthew.  Where  among 
the  living  do  we  find  a  man  whose  works  of  benevolence  have  so 
speedily  and  gloriously  followed  him  ? 

I  should  join  in  this  homage — in  this  act  of  reverence — as  an 
act  of  reverence  to  virtue  alone,  if  no  other  reason  was  offered  ; 
but  I  must  say  with  all  freedom,  and  I  trust  that  the  freedom  will 
be  conceded  to  me  as  I  concede  equal  freedom  to  others,  that 
since  it  is  objected  that  this  act  of  respect  shall  not  be  allowed, 
because  of  the  particular  opinions  of  the  person  who  is  the  subject 
of  it,  in  regard  to  slavery,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  with  all  re- 
spect, that  I  hope  the  American  Senate  will  give  evidence,  by  the 
unanimity  with  which  they  pass  this  resolution,  of  this  sentiment — 
which  is  almost  unanimous,  I  believe,  amongst  us — that  if  slavery 
be  an  error,  if  it  be  a  crime,  if  it  be  a  sin,  we  deplore  its  existence 
among  us,  and  deny  the  responsibility  of  its  introduction  here ; 
and,  therefore,  that  we  shall  not  withhold  from  virtue  the  meed 
which  is  its  due,  because  it  happens  to  be  combined  in  the  person 
of  one  who  exhibits  a  devotion  not  more  to  virtue  than  to  the 
rights  of  man. 


DISCIPLINE    IN   THE   NAVY. 

DECEMBER    30,    1849. 

I  HAVE  the  honor  to  present  a  petition  from  mercantile  and  ship- 
ping houses  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  having  237  names  appended 
to  it,  praying  for  the  abolition  of  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  in 
the  navy  of  the  United  States.  I  submit  also  a  petition  from  cer- 
tain mercantile  houses  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  signed  by  250 
names,  praying  for  the  abolition  of  flogging  in  the  naval  service 
of  the  United  States.  I  move  the  reference,  and  take  this  occa- 
sion to  express  my  concurrence  in  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  in  relation  to  this  subject,  and  to  say 
that,  in  my  judgment,  whoever  is  allowed  the  privilege  of  admin- 

YOL.  1—19. 


286  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

istering  intoxicating  liquors  to  others  daily,  and  of  inflicting  upon 
them  corporeal  chastisement  for  offences,  has  it  in  his  power  to 
exercise  over  them  the  control  that  a  master  exercises  over  his 
slave.  I  do  not  believe  it  necessary  that  such  a  relation  should 
be  established  either  in  the  army  or  the  navy ;  and  since  it  has 
been  sometimes  said  that  the  practice  of  flogging  in  the  navy  must 
be  continued  because  no  substitute  has  been  found  for  it,  I  beg 
leave  to  say,  and  your  own  recollection,  Mr.  President,  will  bear 
witness  to  the  fact,  that  in  the  penitentiary  system  in  the  state  of 
New  York  the  practice  of  corporeal  punishment  has  been  abolished, 
and  that  discipline  has  been  maintained  with  as  much  success  with 
regard  to  labor  and  moral  conduct  as  when  corporeal  punishment 
prevailed. 

There  was  a  struggle  for  twenty  years  to  abolish  this  punishment 
in  the  prisons,  which  was  resisted  upon  the  ground  that  discipline 
could  not  be  maintained  without  it.  Five  or  ten  years  ago  the 
punishment  was  prohibited,  and  it  has  never  been  resorted  to  since. 
There  has  nevertheless  been,  during  that  time,  the  same  quiet,  the 
same  order,  that  prevailed  before.  Public  sentiment  seems  to 
have  entirely  acquiesced  in  the  reform  which  has  been  made,  as 
useful,  humane,  and  benevolent.  The  first  argument  that  I  have 
ever  heard  against  it  was  that  of  the  Senator  from  Florida,  who 
read  from  the  report  of  one  of  the  wardens  of  one  of  the  prisons, 
and  drew  an  inference  from  that  report,  that  it  was  the  judgment 
of  that  officer  that  it  was  expedient  to  return  to  the  old  system.  I 
beg  leave  to  say  to  him,  without  detaining  the  Senate,  that  a  more 
careful  perusal  of  that  document  would  show  that  the  punishment 
substituted  was  the  use  of  the  shower-bath ;  and  that  the  evil  com- 
plained of  was,  that  the  mode  of  applying  it  has  been  so  unneces- 
sarily harsh  as  to  have  resulted  in  producing,  as  the  keeper  sup- 
posed, insanity  in  eight  cases  ;  and  the  keeper  went  on  to  say  that 
he  had,  therefore,  in  a  great  degree,  discontinued  that  form  of 
punishment,  and  had  resorted  to  solitary  confinement  as  a  substi- 
tute, which  had  been  successful.  The  argument  of  the  Senator 
from  Florida,  therefore,  was  based  merely  upon  the  fact  that,  hav- 
ing occasion  to  find  some  other  punishment  than  flogging,  they 
had  not,  in  the  first  instance,  arrived  at  that  which  was  the  right 
one. 


BIGHT  OF  PETITION.  287 


THE    EIGHT    OF    PETITION. 

FEBRUARY    6,   1850. 

NOTE. — MR.  HALE.  I  have  also  received  a  petition  from  inhabitants  of  Pennsylvania 
and  Delaware,  stating  that  they  believe  that  the  federal  constitution,  in  giving  its  support 
to  slavery,  violates  the  divine  law  and  makes  war  upon  human  rights,  and  is  inconsistent 
with  republican  principles ;  and  that  the  attempt  to  unite  slavery  and  freedom  in  one 
body  politic  has  already  brought  upon  the  country  great  and  manifold  evils,  and  has 
fully  proved  that  no  such  union  can  exist  but  by  the  sacrifice  of  freedom  to  the  supremacy 
of  slavery.  They  respectfully  ask  Congress  to  propose  without  delay  some  plan  for  the 
immediate  and  peaceful  dissolution  of  the  American  Union. 

THE  VICE-PRESIDENT.    The  question  will  be  on  the  reception  of  this  petition. 

MR.  SEWA.RD  moved  that  the  petition  be  received  and  referred  to  a  committee,  with 
instructions  to  report  that  Congress  had  no  power  or  motive  to  act  for  the  dissolution  of 
the  Union.  And  on  that  motion,  said : 

MK.  PRESIDENT  : — I  have  considered  the  course  taken  by  a  dis- 
tinguished and  lamented  statesman  in  the  other  House  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  presentation  of  petitions  of  a  character  similar  to 
that  of  the  petition  which  is  now  presented — I  mean  the  late  John 
Quincy  Adams, — and  I  am  satisfied,  as  he  was,  that  the  memorial 
ought  to  be  received,  by  way  of  vindicating  the  right  of  petition. 
I  have  no  more  sympathy  than  he  had  with  the  object  of  a  peti- 
tion which  prays  for  a  dissolution  of  this  Union.  I  have  no  fear 
of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  I  believe  that  it  was  not  made  by 
madmen,  nor  can  madmen  destroy  it ;  and  I  believe  none  but 
madmen  would  petition  for  its  dissolution ;  and  my  rule  always  is, 
in  regard  to  madmen,  never  to  have  any  controversy  with  them. 

I  desire  that  the  issue  involved  in  this  question  shall  be  dis- 
tinctly understood.  It  is  this.  On  the  one  side  of  the  House,  it 
is  the  proposition  that  this  petition  shall  not  be  received ;  that  is, 
it  is  a  virtual  rejection  of  the  petition.  On  the  other  side,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  the  petition  shall  be  received,  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary,  with  instructions  to  report  that  the  Senate 


288  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

has  not  the  power  nor  the  disposition  to  entertain  the  question. 
There  is  no  question  whether  the  Union  ought  to  be  dissolved  at 
all ;  we  are  unanimous  against  that.  Under  these  circumstances, 
I  shall  vote  for  the  reception  of  the  petition,  for  the  reasons  I  have 
stated. 

MR.  FOOTE.  "Will  the  honorable  Senator  vote  for  the  reception 
of  a  petition  which  he  announced  the  other  day,  in  our  hearing, 
to  be  devised  by  madmen? 

MR.  SEWARD.  I  have  never  yet  seen  the  petition  of  any  human 
being  that  I  would  not  receive,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever 
shall.  It  is  not  enough  to  justify  me  in  refusing  to  hear  any  hu- 
man being,  that  I  have  not  the  power  to  grant  the  prayer  of  his 
petition.  The  Constitution  imposes  no  restriction  or  modification 
upon  the  right  of  petition.  Petitions  presented  by  madmen  are 
very  harmless,  and  the  way  to  render  them  more  harmless  is  to 
hear  them,  and  give  them  an  answer — a  civil  answer.  It  is  a  soft 
answer  that  turns  away  wrath.  I  believe  that  if  no  petitions  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery  had  been  rejected,  there  would  never  have 
been  a  petition  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  So  long  as  you 
suffer  those  who  are  disunionists  to  maintain  a  false  issue  upon 
the  right  of  petition,  so  long  do  I  believe  that  that  right  will  be 
misused  and  perverted  for  such  purpose.  It  is  for  that  reason  that 
I  desire  to  receive  this  and  all  other  petitions. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Michigan  [Mr.  CASS]  has  ad- 
verted to  one  or  two  cases,  and  he  asks,  by  way  of  a  parallel, 
whether  we  would  receive  petitions  under  such  circumstances — as, 
for  instance,  petitions  to  declare  that  there  is  no  God  ?  Well,  sir, 
I  have  seen  an  incident  very  similar  to  that  tried  in  legislative 
experience.  I  have  seen  large  masses  of  men  agitated  by  what 
they  regarded  as  dangers  of  the  union  of  the  Church  and  the 
State,  growing  out  of  the  employment  of  chaplains  in  legislative 
bodies.  I  have  seen  then  petitions  presented,  and  a  great  public 
effort  made  to  compel  the  attention  of  the  legislative  body  to  a 
discussion  of  the  question.  They  were  received  and  kindly  exam- 
ined, and  a  disposition  made  of  them,  in  accordance  with  the 
views  of  the  legislative  body. 

The  result  on  that  occasion  was  a  complete  termination  of  the 
agitation.  I  remember  also  petitions  presented  to  legislative 
bodies  to  prohibit  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  common  schools, 
and  the  question  then  arose  as  to  the  wisest  way  to  dispose  of 


THE  EXILES  OF  EUROPE.  289 

them.  Some  wished  to  reject  and  others  to  receive  them  and 
give  them  an  answer.  They  were  received,  and  a  calm  and 
elaborate  answer  made  to  them.  That  was  more  than  ten  years 
ago,  and  no  petition  of  the  kind  has  been  since  presented.  No 
petition  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  will  be  again  presented, 
if  we  receive  this,  and  give  the  answer  to  it  that  is  in  the  mouth 
as  well  as  in  the  heart  of  every  member  of  this  body.  It  is  a 
simple  question  of  reasons.  We  are  not  above  giving  reasons  to 
our  fellow  men.  George  Washington  himself  was  not  above  giving 
a  reason  why  this  Union  should  not  be  dissolved.  He  gave  such 
reasons  earnestly  and  fully  in  his  Farewell  Address.  The  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  in  my  humble  judgment,  is  not  above  the 
petition  of  the  humblest  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  the  de- 
claration that  they  cannot  and  will  not  entertain  the  dissolution  is 
a  question  upon  which  they  might,  with  great  propriety  and  with 
great  advantage,  act  at  this  time. 

NOTE. — The  reception  of  the  petition  was  denied  :  Ayes,  3.    Nays,  51. — ED 


GRANTING   LANDS    TO    EMIGRANTS. 

JANUARY   30,  1850. 

NOTE. — Mr.  Seward  had  submitted  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  conduct  of  Austria  and  of  Russia,  in  the  war  in  which  those  powers 
have  subverted  the  nationality  and  the  liberties  of  Hungary,  has  been  marked  by  injus- 
tice, oppression,  and  barbarity,  which  justly  deserve  the  condemnation  of  mankind,  while 
they  commend  the  Hungarian  people  to  the  sympathies  of  other  nations,  and  especially 
of  republican  states ;  and  that  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands  be  directed  to  inquire 
and  report  on  the  propriety  of  setting  apart  a  portion  of  the  public  domain  to  be  granted, 
free  of  all  charges,  to  the  exiles  of  Hungary  already  arrived,  and  hereafter  to  arrive, 
in  the  United  States,  as  well  as  to  the  exiles  fleeing  from  oppression  in  other  European 
countries. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  It  will  be  recollected  that,  at  a  very  early  day 
in  the  session,  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Michigan,  [Mr. 
CASS,]' introduced  a  resolution,  in  which  it  was  proposed  to  instruct 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  to  consider  and  report  upon 
the  expediency  of  suspending  diplomatic  relations  with  Austria ; 
on  which  occasion  that  honorable  senator  enforced  the  resolution 
by  a  speech  of  surpassing  power  and  interest ;  and  that  the  grounds 
upon  which  he  recommended  the  suspension  of  diplomatic  inter- 
course with  Austria  were  the  oppression  and  barbarity  of  Austria 


290  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

in  the  recent  wars  with  Hungary.  I  listened  with  very  great  in- 
terest, and  with  deep  attention,  to  the  speech  of  the  senator,  in 
which  he  portrayed  his  accusations  against  that  power.  But  I 
was  not  prepared,  and  I  am  not  yet  prepared,  to  think  the  suspen- 
sion of  foreign  relations  with  Austria  is  the  proper  form  of  giving 
expression  to  the  sentiment  which  is  expressed  by  the  senator,  and 
in  which  I  cordially  sympathize,  and  in  which,  I  doubt  not,  every 
member  of  the  Senate  sympathizes  with  him.  It  was  under  those 
circumstances  that  I  submitted  the  resolution  to  the  Senate,  in 
which  I  have  expressed  this  sentiment  of  the  American  people,  of 
condemnation  of  the  atrocious  conduct  of  Austria,  and  of  deep 
and  profound  sympathy  with  the  Hungarian  people  in  their  strug- 
gles for  nationality  and  independence. 

I  regret  very  much  that  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois 
[Mr.  DOUGLAS]  has  thought  it  necessary,  upon  the  present  occa- 
sion, to  raise  a  question  of  comparative  merit  between  the  native- 
born  and  the  foreign  citizen.  If  the  question,  however,  must  be 
raised,  I  am  free  to  say,  that  to  the  extent  which  is  implied  in  the 
resolution  which  I  have  submitted,  I  give  the  preference  to  the 
foreigner,  the  emigrant ;  and  that  is  to  this  extent :  The  man  who 
is  expelled  by  tyranny  from  his  own  land,  in  consequence  of  an 
effort  to  establish  its  nationality  and  independence,  I  give,  in  my 
sympathies,  in  my  admiration,  in  my  respect,  a  preference  over 
one  who  has  lost  nothing,  done  nothing,  suffered  nothing,  for  his 
own  freedom  or  for  the  freedom  of  mankind. 

Further  than  this,  I  would  not  go  ;  and  if  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  has  inferred  that  I  have  sympathies  for  men  of  other 
lands,  as  men,  in  preference  to  my  own  countrymen,  he  does  me 
an  injustice,  which,  in  due  time,  when  his  proposition  comes  be- 
fore the  Senate,  he  will  have  an  opportunity  to  correct.  I,  sir, 
have  never  been — I  am  not  now — I  do  not  know  what  I  may  be — 
but  I  never  have  been  in  favor  of  making  the  profits  arising  from 
the  sale  of  the  public  lands  a  source  of  ordinary  revenue  in  the 
operations  of  the  government.  I  have  always  maintained,  and  I 
think  I  always  shall  maintain,  that  it  is  a  great  fund,  the  common 
property  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States,  properly  to  be 
applied  to  objects  of  great  national  improvement  and  beneficence. 
And  in  this  particular  instance,  I  believe  that  a  proper  opportu- 
nity is  afforded  for  us  to  exercise  our  charity  toward  those  who 
are  entitled  to  our  sympathies  for  their  own  struggles  for  liberty 


THE   EXILES   OF   EUROPE.  291 

and  independence  in  foreign  lands.  Sir,  I  have  never  intimated 
an  objection,  I  do  not  now  say,  that  I  have  the  slightest  objection 
to  the  bill  insisted  upon  by  my  respectable  friend  from  Illinois, 
which  is,  I  believe,  the  same  in  principle  with  the  proposition  of 
the  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  WEBSTER,] 
and  with  that  introduced  to-day  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from 
Texas,  [Mr.  HOUSTON.]  When  their  propositions  come  before  the 
Senate,  they  shall  have  my  cordial  support.  I  only  say  this, 
that  the  duty  of  making  an  expression  in  regard  to  the  struggles 
for  liberty  in  Europe  was  the  subject  under  consideration  when 
my  proposition  was  submitted,  and  nothing  more.  I  intended  to 
go  that  length ;  that  expression,  I  shall  humbly  insist,  ought  to  be 
made  ;  and  it  is  not  wise,  in  my  judgment,  to  connect  it  with  other 
propositions,  which  will  also  receive  my  support.  So  that  I  would 
not  have  the  bill  of  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Illinois,  [Mr. 
DOUGLAS,]  or  whoever  may  be  entitled  to  the  paternity  of  it,  to  be 
allowed  to  embarrass  the  proposition  which  I  have  had  the  honor 
to  submit ;  nor  shall  my  proposition  be  allowed  to  embarrass  that 
of  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  I  hope  that  I  am  now  understood 
upon  the  subject,  and  that  I  have  relieved  myself  from  whatever 
censure  may  have  arisen  from  a  misunderstanding  of  my  intentions. 
I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  for  one  moment,  in  reply  to 
some  remarks  of  my  friend  from  Georgia,  [Mr.  DAWSOIST.]  He 
has  alluded  to  the  motives  which  he  supposed  to  operate  upon 
members  of  this  body,  in  bringing  before  the  Senate  questions  of 
this  character.  My  reply  to  the  senator  upon  that  point  will  be 
exceedingly  brief.  It  is,  that  I  am  here  for  public  measures,  not 
for  private  ends — that  no  imputation  which  can  be  made,  even  by 
a  friend  whom  I  esteem  and  respect  so  highly  as  I  do  my  friend 
from  Georgia,  shall  ever  put  me  before  this  body,  or  any  other, 
on  a  defence  of  myself  against  suspicions  or  complaints  of  this 
kind.  And  now,  sir,  the  point  in  the  remarks  which  I  made, 
which  elicited  the  most  severe  rebuke  from  my  friend  from  Geor- 
gia was,  that  I  had  always  been  opposed  to  the  applying  of  the 
current  revenues  arising  from  the  public  lands  to  the  ordinary 
expenses  of  the  federal  government.  ,  And  the  senator  persisted 
in  supposing  that  I  intended  that  they  should  be  applied  for  no 
other  purpose  than  a  charity  fund.  I  will  illustrate,  for  the  in- 
formation of  the  senator  and  others,  what  I  mean  by  the  applica- 
tion of  those  revenues  to  great  national  purposes  and  objects. 


292  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  CLAY,]  several 
years  since,  by  his  great  influence  in  the  councils  of  the  nation? 
secured  the  distribution  among  the  several  states  of  this  Union  of 
a  portion  of  these  and  other  surplus  revenues  of  this  government. 
I  was  at  a  distance,  an  humble  follower  and  approver  of  that 
policy.  The  result  of  it  in  other  states  I  do  not  know.  But  you, 
Mr.  President,  [Mr.  FILLMORE,]  can  testify  with  me  the  result,  the 
beneficent  result,  in  the  state  of  New  York,  from  which  we  come. 
The  share  which  was  allotted  to  us  was  $6,000,000 ;  the  amount 
we  received  was  $4,500,000.  Every  dollar  of  that  four  and  a  half 
millions,  sir,  more  than  ten  years  ago,  went  to  the  foundation  of 
public  schools,  academies,  seminaries,  and  other  higher  institu- 
tions of  learning,  and  of  libraries  for  the  common  people.  And, 
sir,  I  will  now  state  to  the  Senate — and  I  am  proud  that,  in  behalf 
of  the  state  of  New  York,  I  am  here  this  day  to  state  it  to  the 
praise  and  honor  of  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Kentucky— 
the  condition  of  the  state  of  New  York,  of  the  people,  bond  and 
free — I  might  say,  if  we  had  any  of  the  former  class — native  and 
foreigner,  to  which  they  have  been  brought  by  this  act  of  justice 
—I  will  not  call  it  benevolence.  Sir,  the  state  of  New  York,  hav- 
ing a  population  of  three  millions  of  people,  has  not  in  it  one  child 
of  citizen  or  foreigner  that  is  not  educated,  from  the  age  of  five 
years  to  the  age  of  twenty  years,  at  the  public  cost  and  expense. 
Again,  sir :  at  the  distance  of  every  mile  and  a  half  on  every 
main  road,  railroad,  canal,  and  cross-road — separated  by  only  a 
mile  and  a  half — is  the  school-house  of  New  England.  The  school- 
master is  at  home  everywhere  in  New  York,  and  all  the  time  ; 
and  New  York  has  made  a  trial  of  the  blessed  example  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  Connecticut.  This  is  what  has  been  done  in  my  day, 
since  my  and  your  experience  began ;  and  more  than  that :  in 
every  one  of  these  school-houses  is  a  public  library  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  volumes,  containing  all  that  is  interesting  in  ancient  or 
modern  history  or  science,  literature,  geography,  and  every  other 
branch  of  human  knowledge,  open  and  accessible  to  every  citizen 
— man,  woman,  and  child — in  the  state  of  New  York.  Yes,  sir, 
these  four  millions  and  a  half  have  supplied  us  with  libraries 
which,  taken  collectively,  contain  more  than  one  million  of  vol- 
umes. 

More  than  that,  sir :  there  has  not  been  left  in  the  state  of  New 
York,  the  blind  person  who  has  not  been  taught  to  read  his  bible 


SURPLUS  REVENUES.  293 

— there  has  not  been  left  in  the  state  the  deaf  and  dumb,  the 
mute,  who  has  not  been  brought  to  be  able  to  give  expression  of 
his  gratitude  and  praise  to  God,  and  to  the  state  which  has  brought 
him  from  ignorance  and  degradation  below  his  race.  More  than 
that,  sir  :  we  have  not  neglected  that  other  unfortunate  class.  I 
have  been  asked  why  not  consider  the  free  negroes  ?  Sir,  the  free 
negroes  have  been  considered.  This  fund  has  been  appropriated 
to  their  advancement,  also  ;  to  raise  their  condition  ;  to  cultivate 
them  to  exercise  the  rights  of  self-government,  and  to  carry  on 
the  great  work  of  the  emancipation  of  their  race  wherever  they 
are  found  in  bondage.  Yes,  sir,  five  thousand  children  of  the 
African  race  are  educated  out  of  this  great  fund  of  national  be- 
nevolence. What  becomes  of  the  reproach,  then,  that  this  is  a 
charity  ?  "What  would  have  been  the  disposition  of  this  fund  if  it 
had  been  left  here,  sir  ?  It  would  have  been  expended  as  the 
revenues  of  this  country,  always  too  large,  too  liberal,  have  been 
expended,  in  improvidence.  It  is  therefore  that  I  have  always 
claimed  that  it  should  be  distributed  among  the  states,  that  they 
might  apply  it  to  works  of  advancement — progress — humanity. 

Now,  sir,  there  has  been  no  diminution  of  the  fund  all  this 
time.  While  we  have  been  enjoying  this  four  and  a  half  millions, 
there  is  not  one  dollar  of  it  gone.  Every  dollar  is  there  yet.  It 
is  still  in  the  treasury  of  the  state  of  New  York ;  and  all  that 
has  been  done  has  been  done  only  by  the  use  of  the  money.  Tell 
me,  sir,  is  it  not  wiser  to  make  such  a  distribution  of  this  fund 
than  it  would  be  to  employ  it  in  encouraging  prodigality  in  the 
government ;  than  to  encourage  that  lust  of  conquest  in  which  the 
Mexican  war  had  its  origin,  by  which  were  brought  into  this 
Union  seven  hundred  and  sixty-three  millions  of  acres  of  public 
domain,  to  be  added  to  the  one  thousand  millions  we  had  before  ? 
What  has  it  wrought  ?  It  has  proved,  in  the  words  of  an  honor- 
able senator  here,  but  a  Pandora's  box  of  evils ;  and  we  are  enter- 
tained here,  day  after  day,  with  the  intelligence  that  the  Union 
must  be  dissolved — that  it  is  really  now  dissolved — even  to-day. 
We  employed  the  revenues  of  the  public  domains  in  extending 
our  dominions,  that  were  too  large — unnecessarily  large— already. 
Sir,  I  want  no  more  Mexican  wars,  no  more  lust  of  conquest,  no 
more  of  seizing  the  unripened  fruit,  which,  if  left  alone,  would  of 
itself  fall  into  our  hands.  I  claim  that  the  federal  government 
shall  be  brought  at  once  to  its  responsibility  to  the  people,  and 


294  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

that  the  people  shall  know  what  it  costs  them  to  indulge  it  in 
wars  of  conquest. 

The  Senator  from  Georgia  and  the  Senator  from  Illinois  are 
grieved  that  there  is  a  peculiar  character  about  my  proposition, 
in  considering  the  case  of  foreigners  as  distinguishable  from  the 
case  of  American  citizens.  My  friend  from  Georgia  supposes 
that  he  has  found  a  peculiarly  objectionable  feature  in  this  propo- 
sition, not  found  in  that  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts and  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Texas,  because  it  provides 
distinctly  for  foreigners,  without  providing  for  others.  Sir,  these 
remarks — and  I  am  sorry  to  say,  the  reception,  ungracious  to  me, 
which  they  received  from  the  Senator  from  Illinois — oblige  me  to 
say  what  I  would  not  have  said — that  the  way  to  defeat  any  bene- 
volent or  charitable  object  is  to  bring  into  competition  with  it 
some  other  objects  of  charity  which  ought  to  be  provided  for 
first.  Sir,  the  religion  which  inculcates  the  duty  of  charity  gives 
us  an  admonition  against  such  schemes  for  defeating  the  ends  of 
charity. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Will  the  Senator  from  New  York  allow  me  to 
call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  my  bill  was  brought  in  first,  and, 
therefore,  that  it  is  his  which  is  in  competition  with  mine  ? 

Mr.  SEWAKD.  I  do  not  allude  to  the  senator's  bill.  The  first 
time  that  I  have  heard  of  it  from  a  source  to  which  I  could 
acknowledge  myself  indebted  for  the  information,  was  this  morn- 
ing ;  and  upon  that  occasion  I  rendered  to  him  the  deserved 
homage  of  my  gratitude.  I  claim,  however,  that  for  the  senator 
to  join  with  the  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  DAWSOX]  in  censuring 
me  because  I  discriminated  between  foreigners  and  native  born, 
was  an  unkind  and  an  unnecessary  return  for  that  homage.  I 
was  going  on  to  say,  that  the  religion  which  inculcates  charity  at 
all  events,  and  which  will  never  exculpate  him  who  neglects  it, 
admonishes  us  also  to  pour  oil  upon  and  anoint  with  ointment — 
with  precious  ointment — the  Savior  while  he  is  with  us,  though 
the  Pharisee  may  cavil,  and  say  that  this  precious  ointment  might 
have  been  sold,  and  the  value  of  it  given  to  the  poor.  It  is  no 
excuse  to  me  for  not  paying  this  creditor,  that  there  is  another 
creditor  there  to  whom  I  am  equally  indebted ;  because  we  have 
poor  in  our  own  country,  I  am  not  discharged  from  the  claim  of 
charity  upon  me  in  behalf  of  the  exiles,  whose  liberties  have 
been  stricken  down,  and  who  have  been  driven  amongst  us  from 


THE  EXILES  OF  EUROPE.  295 

their  own  land.  Let  them  all  come  on ;  let  them  present  them- 
selves in  whatever  order,  and  to  the  extent  of  my  ability  I  will 
discharge  and  cancel  my  obligations  to  the  whole.  If  my  friend 
from  Georgia  [Mr.  DAWSON]  supposes  that  this  is  a  measure  I  am 
going  to  require  him  to  support,  as  a  relief  of  aliens,  or  of  the 
alien  and  the  foreigner,  I  will  tell  him,  and  I  will  tell  the  Senator 
from  Illinois,  [Mr.  DOUGLAS,]  that  they  much  mistake  the  nature 
and  character  of  my  sentiments  and  principles  with  regard  to 
aliens  and  foreigners.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  equality  of  men — of 
ALL  men,  whether  they  be  born  in  one  land  or  born  in  another. 
I  am  in  favor  of  receiving  the  whole.  I  acknowledge  them  all  to  -* 
constitute  one  great  family,  for  whom  it  is  the  business  of  states- 
men and  the  business  of  man  to  labor  and  to  live.  And,  sir, 
when  I  do  have  occasion  to  ask  the  votes  of  those  distinguished 
senators  and  friends  in  behalf  of  the  alien  and  the  foreigner,  it 
will  not  be  the  exile,  merely,  who  is  commended  to  our  sympa- 
thies for  the  sufferings  he  has  sustained  in  the  cause  of  liberty 
in  Europe ;  but  it  will  be  for  the  melioration  of  the  laws  of 
naturalization,  which  put  a  period  of  five  years  and  an  oath  in 
the  way  of  any  man  of  any  country  in  becoming  a  citizen,  which 
raise  a  barrier  between  ourselves  and  those  who  cast  their  lot 
amongst  us.  There  is  where  they  will  find  me ;  and  they  will 
find  that  to  the  extent  that  humanity  bears  the  semblance  which 
is  impressed  upon  us  by  the  hand  of  our  Maker,  it  is  my  design 
and  my  purpose  to  labor  to  bring  about  that  equality  in  the  land 
in  which  I  live,  and  as  far  as  may  be,  in  all  other  lands. 

And,  going  upon  this  broad  principle,  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying  that  there  is  no  distinction  in  my  respect  or  affection  be- 
tween men  of  one  land  and  of  another ;  between  men  of  one 
clime  and  another ;  between  men  of  one  race  and  another ;  or 
between  men  of  one  color  and  another ;  no  distinction  but  what 
is  based,  not  upon  institutions  of  government,  not  upon  the  con- 
sent of  society,  but  upon  their  individual  and  personal  merit.  If 
the  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  DAWSON]  will  test  this,  if  he  has 
this  sympathy  for  free  negroes  which  I  am  rejoiced  to  hear  him 
proclaim,  let  him  bring  in  his  bill,  and  the  first  aye  that  shall 
respond  to  it  will  be  mine — if  none  should  so  respond  to  it  before 
my  name  should  be  alphabetically  reached,  shall  be  mine.  More 
than  that ;  if  his  sympathies  embrace  a  class  that  deserve  them 
still  more — the  slave — let  him  bring  in  his  bill  for  the  slave,  and 


296  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

my  voice  for  emancipating  the  slave  in  any  district  or  territory 
shall  go  for  it.  Nay,  more  ;  let  him  show  me  a  way  in  which  I 
can  give  a  vote,  an  effectual  vote,  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
slave,  in  his  own  state,  or  any  state,  and  I  shall  feel  honored  to 
participate  in  the  movement ;  and  my  vote  shall  be  given  to  sus- 
tain it,  with  more  gladness,  more  gratitude,  and  more  joy,  than  it 
was  ever  given  upon  any  occasion  in  my  life. 

Sir,  neither  here  nor  elsewhere  will  I  admit,  as  a  rule  for  the 
government  of  my  own  conduct,  that  there  is  a  distinction  between 
men.  But,  on  the  contrary,  I  will  walk  up  to  the  mark,  assigned 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  "  ATX  MEN  ARE  CREATED 
EQUAL."  Sir,  the  first  vote  given  by  me  to  keep  any  man,  or  any 
class  of  men,  in  a  condition  below  my  own,  is  yet  to  be  given.  It 
never  will  be  given  in  this  place. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  submitted  the  remarks  I  thought  neces- 
sary to  vindicate  my  proposition  from  the  censure  it  received 
when  it  has  so  indirectly  made  its  appearance  before  the  Senate. 
When  that  proposition  shall  be  brought  before  the  Senate  in  its 
proper  order  and  manner,  after  the  Senate  shall  have  considered 
the  resolution  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan,  [Mr.  CASS,] 
I  shall  be  pleased  to  state  the  reasons  why  I  have  submitted  that 
proposition  in  detail,  and  the  grounds  upon  which  I  have  given  it 
its  present  form. 


ON    THE    CENSUS. 

APRIL    10,   1850. 

NOTE. — MR.  KING,  of  Alabama,  moved  to  strike  out  of  the  interrogatories  prescribed  by 
the  Bill,  the  following : 

"  If  a  female,  the  number  of  children  she  has  had  known  to  be  alive, — known  to  be 
dead." 

IT  appears  to  me  that  the  information  sought  to  be  obtained 
by  this  clause  is  essential,  and  that  it  will  be  found  to  be  so. 
It  is  interesting  to  us  all,  as  a  question  of  political  science,  to 
know  the  actual  condition  of  every  class  of  population  in  this 
country;  and  certainly  it  concerns  the  public,  as  well  as  the 
government,  to  know  the  actual  relative  condition  of  the  different 


THE  CENSUS.  297 

classes  of  population.  As  I  understand  the  proposition  of  the  com- 
mittee, they  desire  to  procure  information  in  regard  to  the  com- 
parative longevity  of  the  white  and  black  races  in  their  various 
conditions.  If  this  information  be  obtained,  it  will  be  useful  with 
reference  to  that  purpose.  They  desire  to  ascertain  the  number 
of  children  that  each  woman  has  borne,  the  number  that  are  liv- 
ing, and  the  number  that  are  dead,  with  reference  to  the  question 
of  comparative  longevity.  It  is  very  desirable  that  we  ascertain 
whatever  affects  the  social  and  physical  condition  of  the  masses  of 
society. 

But  there  is  another  point.  There  is  no  woman,  with  great  de- 
ference to  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  who  can  have  forgotten  the 
number  of  children  that  she  had  borne.  If  it  be  true,  as  he  says, 
that  there  are  women  who  do  not  know  whether  their  children  be 
living  or  dead,  and  even  how  many  they  have  borne,  I  should  like 
to  ascertain  the  number  of  such  that  there  are  of  all  races.  And 
I  desire  this  information  because  wTe  have  all  cherished  a  hope 
that  the  condition  of  African  servitude  in  this  country  was  a  stage 
of  transition  from  a  state  of  barbarism  to  a  state  of  improvement 
hereafter.  I  wish  to  know  how  rapid  that  progress  is.  I  believe 
it  cannot  be  possible  that  there  are  any  women,  even  in  Africa, 
who  have  forgotten  the  number  of  children  they  have  borne.  If 
there  be  any  in  America  who  have  forgotten  that  fact,  so  import- 
ant and  interesting  to  themselves,  I  wish  to  know  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  operation  of  our  social  system,  and  the 
success  of  that  system  as  leading  to  the  improvement  of  the  Afri- 
can race.  I  wish  to  know  also  what  is  the  extent  of  the  education 
or  of  instruction  that  prevails,  so  as  to  ascertain  whether  they  are 
advancing  toward  that  better  condition  which  constitutes  the  only 
excuse,  as  I  understand,  that  we  have  for  holding  them  in  servi- 
tude. 


DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


SIK   JOHN   FKANKLIN.* 

MAY    1,    1850. 

I  AM  happy  to  perceive,  Mr.  President,  indications  all  around 
the  Chamber  that  there  is  no  disagreement  in  regard  to  the  im- 
portance, or  in  relation  to  the  propriety,  of  a  search  on  the  part  of 
this  nation,  by  the  government  itself,  or  by  individual  citizens,  for 
the  lost  and  heroic  navigator.  Since  so  much  is  conceded,  and 
since  I  come  from  the  state  whence  this  proposition  emanates,  I 
desire  to  notice,  in  a  very  few  words,  the  objections  raised  against 
the  mode  of  carrying  the  proposed  design  into  effect.  It  is  always 
the  case,  I  think,  when  great  objects  and  great  enterprises,  which 
are  feasible,  are  hindered  or  defeated,  that  they  are  hindered  or 
defeated,  not  so  much  by  want  of  agreement  concerning  the 
measures  themselves,  as  by  diversity  of  opinion  concerning  the 
mode  of  carrying  them  into  execution.  Since  this  is  so  generally 
the  case,  the  rule  which  I  always  adopt,  and  which  seems  to  be  a 
safe  one,  is,  that  where  I  cannot  have  my  own  way  of  obtaining 
a  great  public  object,  I  will  accept  the  best  other  way  which  opens 
before  me.  ISTow,  I  cordially  agree  with  those  honorable  senators 
who  would  have  preferred  that  at  some  appropriate  time,  and  in 
some  proper  and  unobjectionable  manner,  the  government  should 
have  moved  for  the  attainment  of  this  object  as  a  government,  and 
have  made  it  exclusively  the  act  of  the  nation.  And  I  would 
have  preferred  this,  not  so  much  on  account  of  the  glory  that  it  is 
supposed  would  have  followed  it,  as  because  of  the  beneficence  of 
the  enterprise.  Enterprises  which  spring  from  a  desire  of  glory 
are  very  apt  to  end  in  disappointment.  True  national  glory  is 
always  safely  attained  by  prosecuting  beneficient  designs,  what- 

*  Remarks  on  Mr.  Henry  Grinnell's  offer  of  two  vessels  for  an  exploration  in  search 
of  Sir  John  Franklin. 


SIR  JOHN  FRANKLIN.  299 

ever  may  be  their  success.     I  say,  sir,  then,  that  I  would  have 
preferred  the  alternative  suggested  ;  but  the  fact  is,  without  stop- 
ping to  inquire  where  the  fault  lies,  or  whether  there  be  fault  at 
all,  the  government  has  not  moved,  and  the  reason  which  has 
been  assigned  is,  I  have  no  doubt,  the  true  one.     I  do  not  know 
that  it  has  ever  been  contradicted  or  called  in  question ;  that  rea- 
son is,  that  the  navy  of  the  United  States  contains  no  vessels 
adapted  to  the  enterprise,  but  consists  of  ships  constructed  and  fitted 
for  very  different  objects  and  purposes  than  an  exploring  expedition 
amid  the  ice-bound  seas  of  the  Arctic  pole.     Our  naval  marine 
consists  of  vessels  adapted  to  the  purposes  of  convoys,  military 
armament,  and  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade  on  the  coast  of 
Africa.     The  executive  portion  of  the  government  failed  for  want 
of  vessels  suitable  to  be  employed  in  this  particular  service.      It 
therefore  devolved  upon  the  Legislature  of  the  United  States. 
But,  although  we  have  been  here  now  nearly  five  months,  no 
committee  of  either  House,  no  member  of  either  House  of  Con- 
gress has  proposed  to  equip  a  national  fleet  for  this  purpose. 
While  this  fact  exists  on  one  side,  it  is  to  be  remarked  on  the  other, 
that  the  time  has  arrived  in  which  the  movement  must  be  made, 
if  it  is  to  be  made  at  all,  and  also  that  a  careful  investigation, 
made  by  scientific  and  practical  men,  has  revived  the  hope  in 
Europe  and  in  America  that  the  humane  object  can  be  attained. 
There  can,  then,  be  no  delay  allowed  for  considering  whether  the 
manner  of  carrying  the  design  into  effect  could  not  be  changed. 
Let  us,  then,  practically  survey  the  case  as  it  comes  before  us. 
The  government  of  the  United  States  has  really  no  vessels  adapted 
to  the  purpose.     To  say  nothing  of  the  expense,  the  government 
has  not  time  to  provide,  prepare,  or  equip  vessels  for  the  expedi- 
tion.    Under  such  circumstances,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
tenders  to  the  government  vessels  of  his  own,  precisely  adequate 
in  number,  and  exactly  fitted  in  construction  and  equipment  for 
the  performance  of  the  duty  to  be  assumed.     Since  he  offers  them 
to  the  government,  what  reason  can  we  assign  for  refusing  them  ? 
No  reason  can  be  assigned,  except  that  he  is  too  generous,  and 
offers  to  give  us  the  use  of  the  vessels  instead  of  demanding  com- 
pensation for  it.     "Well,  sir,  if  we  do  not  accept  them,  then  this 
enterprise  cannot  be  carried  into  effect ;  at  least,  not  now,  probably 
never.     If  we  do  accept  them,  it  can  be  immediately  carried  into 
execution,  with  a  cheering  prospect  of  attaining  the  great  object 


300  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

which  the  United  States  and  the  civilized  world  have  such  deep 
interest  in  securing.  Then  the  question  resolves  itself  into  this — 
the  question  raised  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr. 
KING], — whether,  in  seeking  so  beneficent  an  object,  it  is  consistent 
with  the  dignity  of  the  nation  to  combine  individual  action  with 
national  enterprise.  I  do  not  think,  Mr.  President,  that  that  honor- 
able Senator  will  find  himself  obliged  to  insist  upon  this  objec- 
tion after  he  shall  have  carefully  examined  the  bill  before  us.  He 
will  find  that  it  converts  the  undertaking  into  a  national  enter- 
prise. The  vessels  are  to  be  accepted  not  as  individual  property, 
but  as  national  vessels.  They  will  absolutely  cease  to  be  under 
the  direction,  management,  or  control  of  the  owners,  and  will  be- 
come at  once  national  ships,  and  for  the  time,  at  least,  and  for  all 
the  purposes  of  the  expedition,  a  part  of  the  national  marine. 

Now,  sir,  have  we  not  postal  arrangements  with  various  foreign 
countries  carried  into  effect  in  the  same  way,  and  is  the  dignity  of 
the  nation  compromised  by  them  ?  During  the  war  with  Mexico, 
the  government  continually  hired  ships  and  steamboats  from  citi- 
zens for  military  operations.  Is  the  glory  of  that  war  tarnished 
by  the  use  of  those  means  ?  The  government  in  this  case,  as  in 
those  cases,  is  in  no  sense  a  partner.  It  assumes  the  whole  control 
of  the  vessels,  and  the  enterprise  becomes  a  national  one.  The 
only  circumstance  remaining  to  be  considered  is,  whether  the 
government  can  accept  the  loan  of  the  service  of  the  vessels  with- 
out making  compensation.  Now,  sir,  I  should  not  have  had  the 
least  objection,  and  indeed  it  would  have  been  more  agreeable  to 
me,  if  the  government  could  have  made  an  arrangement  to  have 
paid  a  compensation.  But  I  hold  it  to  be  quite  unnecessary  in  the 
present  case,  because  the  character  of  the  person  who  tenders 
these  vessels,  and  the  circumstances  and  manner  of  the  whole 
transaction,  show  that  it  is  not  a  speculation.  No  compensation 
is  wanted.  It  would  only  be  a  ceremony  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment to  offer  it,  and  a  ceremony  on  the  part  of  the  merchant  to 
decline  it.  I  am,  therefore,  willing  to  march  directly  to  the  ob- 
ject, and  to  assume  that  these  ceremonies  have  been  duly  perform- 
ed ;  that  the  government  has  offered  to  pay,  and  the  noble-spi- 
rited merchant  declined  to  receive. 

Now,  sir,  is  there  anything  derogatory  from  the  dignity  and 
independence  of  this  nation  in  employing  the  vessels  ?  Certainly 
not,  since  that  employment  is  indispensable.  If  it  were  not  indis- 


SIR  JOHN  FRANKLIN.  301 

pensable,  I  do  not  think  that  the  dignity  of  the  republic  would 
be  impaired  ;  I  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  would  be  enhanced 
and  elevated.  It  is  a  transaction  worthy  of  the  nation,  a  spectacle 
deserving  the  contemplation  and  respect  of  mankind,  to  see  that 
not  only  does  the  nation  prosecute,  but  that  it  has  citizens  able 
and  willing  to  contribute,  voluntarily  and  without  compulsion,  to 
an  enterprise  so  interesting  to  the  cause  of  science  and  of  human- 
ity. It  is,  indeed,  a  new  and  distinct  cause  for  national  pride  that 
an  individual  citizen,  not  a  merchant  prince,  as  he  would  be  called 
in  some  other  countries,  but  a  republican  merchant,  comes  forward 
in  this  way,  and  moves  the  government  and  co-operates  with  it. 
It  illustrates  the  magnanimity  of  the  nation  and  of  the  citizen. 
Sir,  there  is  nothing  objectionable  in  this  feature  of  the  transac- 
tion. It  results  from  the  character  of  the  government,  which  is 
essentially  popular,  that  there  are  perpetual  debates  on  the  ques- 
tion how  far  measures  and  enterprises,  for  purposes  of  humanity 
and  science,  are  consistent  with  the  constitutional  organization  of 
the  government,  although  they  are  admitted  to  be  eminently  com- 
patible with  the  dignity,  character,  and  intelligence  of  the  nation. 
All  our  enterprises,  more  or  less,  are  carried  into  execution,  if  they 
are  carried  into  execution  at  all,  not  by  the  direct  action  of  the 
government,  but  by  the  lending  of  its  favor,  countenance,  and  aid 
to  individuals,  to  corporations,  and  to  states.  Thus  it  is  that  we 
construct  railroads  and  canals,  and  found  colleges  and  universities. 

Nor  is  this  mode  of  prosecuting  enterprises  of  great  pith  and 
moment  peculiar  to  this  government.  There  was  a  navigator  who 
went  forth  from  a  port  in  Spain,  some  three  or  four  hundred  years 
ago,  on  an  enterprise  quite  as  doubtful,  and  quite  as  perilous  as 
this.  After  trying  unsuccessfully  several  states,  he  was  forced  to 
be  content  with  the  sanction,  and  little  more  than  the  sanction  and 
patronage,  of  the  Court  of  Madrid.  The  scanty  treasures  devoted 
to  that  undertaking  were  the  private  contributions  of  a  queen  and 
her  subjects,  and  the  vessels  were  fitted  out  and  manned  at  the 
expense  of  merchants  and  citizens  which  gave  a  new  world  to  the 
Kingdom  of  Castile  and  Leon. 

Entertaining  these  views  now,  whatev.er  my  opinion  might  have 
been  under  other  circumstances,  I  shall  vote  against  a  recommittal, 
and  in  favor  of  the  bill,  as  the  surest  way  of  preventing  its  defeat, 
and  of  attaining  the  sublime  and  beneficent  object  which  it  con- 
templates. 

YOL.  1—20. 


302  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  IN  THE  NEW  STATES. 

APRIL   29,   1850. 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — This  public  domain  is  the  property  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  the  property  of  the  United  States  in  trust  for 
the  common  and  equal  benefit  of  all  the  states.  One  of  the  ways 
in  which  it  can  be  made  use  of  by  the  United  States  is,  to  derive 
revenue  from  it,  as  has  been  done  heretofore.  That  is  a  legitimate 
way  to  use  it,  but  it  is  not  the  only  way.  If  it  be  the  only  way, 
then  the  domain  has  ceased  to  be  of  any  use  to  the  United  States. 
It  has  already  happened  that  revenue  has  ceased  to  flow  from  the 
public  domain.  It  has  ceased,  according  to  the  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  for  sixteen  years  to  come.  According 
to  the  estimate  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan,  [Mr. 
FELCH]  who  addressed  us  the  other  day,  the  fountain  may  flow 
again,  within  a  period  shorter  than  that.  I  should  judge  his 
estimate  was  in  seven  or  eight  years.  However  that  may  be,  we 
all  know  that  new  appropriations  will  continually  follow  those 
already  made,  and  those  new  appropriations  will  increase  in  mag- 
nitude. It  is  therefore  apparent  that  the  lands  have  ceased  for- 
ever to  contribute  to  the  treasury  of  the  United  States  ;  that  that 
time  has  arrived  which  General  Jackson  thought  it  was  desirable 
should  come  speedily,  when  the  government  of  the  United  States 
should  cease  to  look  to  this  resource  for  revenue.  I  believe  that 
time  has  come  sooner  than  he  anticipated.  Now,  I  want  to  make 
the  most  out  of  the  public  lands  for  the  common  welfare  of  the 
United  States,  that  can  be  made  in  some  other  way ;  and,  in  my 
judgment,  the  best  way  is  to  use  the  avails  of  them,  or  allow  the 
states  to  use  the  avails  of  them,  for  the  purpose  of  constructing 
railroads  and  canals,  and  establishing  institutions  of  learning.  I 
care  not  whether  it  be  done  by  the  United  States,  or  by  the  states 
severally ;  I  am  willing  that  the  states  nearly  concerned  should 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  303 

liave  all  that  this  bill  in  its  original  shape  proposes,  and  as  much 
more  as  this  amendment  will  give  them  ;  and  I  anticipate  that  at 
the  expiration  of  this  half  century  it  will  be  seen  that  this  very 
policy,  so  much  opposed — of  appropriating  public  lands  to  the 
construction  of  railroads — will  be  found  to  have  been  of  more 
beneficial  and  benign  operation  upon  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of 
the  whole  people,  and  upon  the  bond  of  union  itself,  than  the 
system  which  has  been  pursued  heretofore,  beneficent  as  I  admit 
that  that  system  has  been.  I  am  sure,  therefore,  the  honorable 
senators  who  are  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  original  bill  will 
find  it  aided  by  the  amendment  proposed  ;  for  there  are  many  in 
Congress  who  agree  in  the  sentiments  I  have  expressed,  and  I 
think  those  sentiments  are  becoming  common  in  some  portions  of 
the  Union. 

"With  regard  to  the  merits  of  the  improvement  specified  in  the 
amendment  to  the  bill,  it  will  cerfainly  be  one  of  vast  importance 
in  connecting  Louisville  with  St.  Louis.  It  will  be  beneficent  in 
its  operation  to  all  the  southern  states,  and  especially  to  the  city  of 
New  Orleans. 

In  reply  to  my  honorable  friend  from  "Wisconsin,  [Mr.  WALKER] 
who  seems  to  intimate  that  the  construction  of  railroads  across  the 
parallels  of  latitude  through  the  western  and  the  southern  states 
will  tend  to  revolutionize  the  commerce  of  the  country,  I  may  say 
that  I  feel  as  deep  an  interest  in  the  stability  of  the  present  chan- 
nels and  courses  of  commerce  as  any  one,  nevertheless  I  am  willing 
to  incur  all  the  hazard  of  constructing  the  roads  now  under  con- 
sideration. I  have  found  that  the  more  roads  and  canals  were 
made  in  any  part  of  the  United  States,  the  more  the  whole  country 
prospered.  You  may  make  railroads  anywhere,  they  will  practi- 
cally terminate  in  one  centre,  and  swell  the  wealth,  the  prosperity, 
and  the  advancement  of  the  great  commercial  metropolis  of  the 
Union.  Her  position  is  assured.  She  knows  no  fear,  and  indulges 
no  jealousy. 

I  have  no  difficulty  about  the  constitutional  power  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  make  works  of  national  improve- 
ment— to  construct  roads  of  any  kind  .which  shall  serve  for  great 
national  objects.  I  can  conceive  of  no  public  improvements  more 
obviously  adapted  to  promote  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the 
country,  or  more  indispensable  to  the  security  of  the  United  States, 
than  a  railroad  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  junction  of  the  Ohio 


304  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  Mississippi  rivers.  I  think  also  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  has  a  discretion  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  will 
accomplish,  or  aid  in  accomplishing,  such  an  object,  and  as  to  the 
funds  which  shall  he  devoted  to  that  purpose.  Then  the  question 
before  us,  so  far  as  the  principle  is  concerned,  resolves  itself  into 
this  :  whether,  this  being  a  work  of  such  a  national  character,  pro- 
ductive of  national  benefits,  it  is  one  which  is  entitled  to  special 
consideration  on  the  part  of  government  now.  I  think  it  is  entitled 
to  very  special  consideration,  which  will  appear  from  examining  the 
particular  condition  of  the  new  states  as  contrasted  with  the  old 
ones.  The  old  states  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia,  were  all  the 
owners  of  the  public  domain  within  their  limits.  When  it  was  de- 
sirable for  them  to  construct  public  works,  they  were  always  able 
to  appropriate  public  lands  or  funds  arising  from  the  sold  lands, 
or  at  least  the  taxes  derived  from  the  lands  within  their  lim- 
its. The  consequence  has  been  that  all  the  old  states,  having 
themselves  very  considerable  resources,  have  constructed,  directly 
or  indirectly,  very  important  public  thoroughfares,  useful  and 
beneficial  to  commerce,  and  particularly  to  travel,  and  to  the 
wealth,  prosperity,  and  advancement  of  the  whole  country. 
But  they  have  never  been  made  by  mere  individual,  unas- 
sisted enterprise,  without  having  been  attended  by  very  great 
delay  and  embarrassment.  A  great  and  extensive  country  like 
this  has  need  of  roads  and  canals  earlier  than  there  is  an  accumu- 
lation of  private  capital  within  the  states  to  construct  them  ;  and 
so  an  examination  of  the  history  of  the  old  states  would  show  that 
the  government  of  the  states  has  lent  or  given  its  aid,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  assist  individuals  or  corporations  in  the  construction 
of  these  great  public  works  which  are  now  so  productive,  either 
to  the  state  or  to  the  individuals  by  whom,  in  associated  com- 
panies, they  are  owned. 

There  are  many  curious  facts  connected  with  the  history  of  the 
internal-improvement  system  in  the  older  states.  "Whoever  will 
look  into  the  statute-book  of  the  colony  of  New  York,  will  be 
struck  with  the  beginning  of  the  great  system  of  canals  and  roads, 
which  are  now  partially  constructed,  and  when  completed  will 
connect  the  port  of  New  York  with  the  Pacific  ocean.  He  will 
find,  that  in  the  time  of  Queen  Anne  the  assembly  of  the  colony 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  305 

of  New  York  appropriated  $800  to  John  Smith,  or  some  other 
person,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  construct  a  public 
road,  leading  from  New  York  to  the  West ;  and  the  appropriation 
was  coupled  with  the  condition,  that  within  two  years  from  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  the  act,  the  beneficiaries  should  have  con- 
structed a  road  wide  enough  for  two  carriages  to  pass  from  Nyack, 
on  the  Hudson  river,  to  Sterling  Iron  Works,  a  distance  of  about 
twenty  miles ;  and  should  have  cut  away  the  limbs  of  the  trees, 
so  high  up  as  to  allow  a  carriage,  with  a  calash  top,  to  pass.     That 
was  the  commencement  of  the  internal-improvement  system  in 
the  state  of  New  York ;  which,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years,  has  proceeded  no  further  yet  than  to 
complete  the  Erie  canal,  and  to  open  two  railroads — one  of  which 
is  completed,  and  the  other  nearly  so — from  New  York  to  the 
mouth  of  Lake  Erie.     I  regard  this  work,  which  is  now  under 
consideration  here,  as  an  extension  of  that  system,  and  the  whole 
as  constituting  a  great  national  enterprise — a  great  national  tho- 
roughfare.    With  me,  then,  the  question  is,  whether  it  is  wise  and 
expedient  to  devote  the  public  lands  for  the  accomplishment  of 
this  purpose  ;  and  if  so,  whether  it  is  necessary  for  the  public 
interest  that  this  road  should  be  made  earlier  than  it  would  other- 
wise be  by  private  capital.     Now,  if  it  be  true,  as  I  have  said, 
that  all  the  old  states,  owning  lands  within  their  borders,  and 
having  unlimited  power  to  tax,  have  still  found  it  difficult  and 
embarrassing  to  prosecute  these  improvements,  then  it  seems  to 
me  the  case  of  new  states  is  essentially  harder,  and  more  entitled 
to  the  consideration  of  the  government ;  for  it  happens  that  these 
new  states  are  founded  upon  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States  :  the  United  States  own  the  lands,  and  the  government  of 
the   states   cannot  appropriate   them.     The  government  of  the 
United  States  owns  the  lands,  and  they  cannot  be  taxed  except  so 
far  as  they  are  sold  ;  and  these  new  members  of  the  confederacy 
are  tributaries  to  the  federal  government,  deprived  of  the  resources 
which  the  older  states  have  enjoyed  for  the  purpose  of  completing 
their  public  works.     I  think,  therefore,  that  the  government  owes 
it  to  itself,  and  to  the  states,  to  make  liberal,  and  at  the  same  time 
judicious  appropriations,  to  extend  its  net-work  of  railroads  and 
canals  over  these  new  regions,  where  the  people  and  the  govern- 
ment are  unable  to  construct  the  work  themselves.    And,  if  there 
were  any  apparent  fallacy  in  this  argument,  I  think  I  should  never- 


306  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

theless  be  convinced  of  its  soundness,  by  the  fact,  that  all  the  new 
states  which  have  undertaken  to  construct  these  necessary  tho- 
roughfares— necessary  not  only  for  themselves,  but  for  the  whole 
country — necessary  for  the  welfare  and  prosperity,  and  even  for 
the  existence  of  the  Union — have  all  found  themselves  embar- 
rassed and  crippled,  and  many  of  them  rendered  bankrupt,  by 
the  attempt  to  accomplish  objects  which  they  were  unable  to 
accomplish,  and  which  the  federal  government  had  ample  power 
to  carry  into  effect.  It  is  thus  that  the  character  of  the  states  has 
been  affected.  It  is  thus  that  the  morality  of  the  governments  of 
the  states  has  been  impeached  ;  and  it  has  been  done  in  the  man- 
ner I  have  indicated,  for  the  reason  that  it  was  devolved  upon  the 
governments  of  the  states  to  make  works  of  internal  improve- 
ment, while  the  resources  which  were  applicable  to  that  object 
belonged  altogether  to  the  federal  government. 

Now,  I  do  not  know,  but  I  trust  that  the  day  is  far  distant  when 
we  shall  have  occasion  for  any  road  for  the  purpose  of  military 
defence ;  but  we  can  all  see  that  the  time  may  come,  and  we 
know  not  how  soon  it  may  be,  when  this  and  all  our  public  roads 
may  be  required  for  military  purposes.  And  if  it  be  right  in  time 
of  peace  to  prepare  for  war,  then  it  is  right  to  make  these  appro- 
priations, which  are,  after  all,  most  effective  securities  for  peace 
by  preventing  war,  and  are  most  indispensable  works  of  defence 
in  case  of  actual  war. 

I  hear  it  said  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  a 
trustee.  I  do  not  find  that  the  United  States  are  even  called  by 
that  title,  or  described  as  a  trustee  in  regard  to  this  property.  It 
is  indeed  true,  that  in  one  sense,  a  general  sense,  the  government 
is  a  trustee  over  these  public  lands ;  but  in  no  other  sense  than 
that  they  are  trustees  of  the  exercise  of  their  responsibilities  of 
governing.  It  seems  to  be  supposed  that  they  are  fiduciary  trus- 
tees, that  they  have  pecuniary  trusts,  and  that  their  trusts  consist 
in  holding  these  lands  until  they  can  sell  them  at  a  certain  price, 
and  then  selling  at  this  price,  and  then  by  some  process  to  make, 
as  nearly  as  possible,  an  equal  distribution  of  the  avails  among  all 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  thus  securing  an  equal  individual 
benefit  in  the  land  to  each  individual  citizen.  Now,  sir,  I  find  no 
such  limitation  of  the  general  powers  of  government,  of  the  broad 
powers  of  the  government  over  this  domain.  It  is  a  power  to 
hold  it,  a  power  to  use  it,  a  power  to  dispose  of  it,  and  to  dispose 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  307 

of  it  without  any  limitations  prescribed  upon  our  discretion.  And 
then  it  is,  like  every  other  power  of  the  government,  to  be  ex- 
ercised with  judgment,  wisdom,  and  a  due  regard  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  country.  What,  then,  is  the  best  and  highest 
interests  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  this 
domain  ?  It  is  not  to  derive  from  it  the  highest  amount  of  cur- 
rent revenue  ;  it  is  not  to  accumulate  in  our  coffers  the  highest 
and  greatest  amount  of  avails  in  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
which  is  attainable.  But  it  is  to  bring  them  into  cultivation  and 
settlement  in  the  shortest  space  of  time,  and  under  the  most 
favorable  auspices.  And  why  is  this  the  best  interest  of  the 
government  ?  It  is  because  the  power  of  the  government  is 
increased  just  in  proportion  as  population  is  extended  over  what 
now  constitutes  the  public  domain,  and  that  the  wealth  of  the 
government  increases  in  the  same  ratio  as  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation, and  that  the  taxable  ability  of  the  people  for  purposes  of 
peace  and  war  is  increased  by  the  extension  of  the  population  and 
by  the  increase  of  wealth.  I  can  conceive  it  possible  that  it  is 
more  profitable,  more  conducive  to  the  interests  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  even  in  a  fiscal  or  purely  financial  point  of 
view,  to  make  large  appropriations  from  this  domain  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enhancing  their  more  speedy  settlement,  than  it  would  be 
to  retain  them  in  a  miserly  grasp  for  the  mere  purpose  of  revenue. 
It  is  therefore  upon  the  ground  that  the  most  expedient  and  bene- 
ficial disposition  of  this  portion  of  the  public  lands  is  to  devote  it 
to  the  construction  of  public  roads  beneficial  to  all  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  as  well  as  to  the  states  which  are  immediately 
traversed  by  it,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  the  principle  of  this  bill, 
and  of  all  similar  bills  which  are  properly  guarded  in  their  pro- 
visions, and  shall  give  them  my  most  cordial  and  effective  support. 
I  hope  that  the  bill  will  be  passed. 


308        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


THE  PATENT  LAWS. 

MAY    24,    1850. 

I  AM  quite  satisfied,  Mr.  President,  that  if  this  bill  should  be 
passed  in  its  present  shape,  it  would  defeat  the  purpose  of  the 
committee  by  whom  it  has  been  reported ;  that  it  would  subvert 
the  patent  jurisprudence  of  the  country,  and  practically  abolish 
the  legislation  which  has  been  matured  through  a  period  of  sixty 
years  for  carrying  out  that  beneficent  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion which  authorizes  Congress  "  to  provide  for  the  encouragement 
of  the  useful  arts  by  securing  to  inventors  the  benefit  of  their 
discoveries  for  a  term  of  years."  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  think  it 
at  all  singular  that  the  provisions  of  the  bill  are  found,  as  with 
due  deference  I  think  they  are,  crude  and  unsatisfactory.  This 
arises,  there  is  no  doubt,  from  the  peculiar  delicacy  and  the  pecu- 
liar difficulty  of  all  legislation  and  of  all  adjudication  touching 
this  important  subject. 

It  has  been  said  by  very  high  authority,  and  has  been  admitted 
by  every  judge  and  every  jurist  who  has  had  occasion  to  admin- 
ister the  law  of  patents,  that  it  constituted  the  metaphysics  of 
legal  science.  This  difficulty  arises  chiefly  from  the  circumstance 
that  it  is  easier  for  even  a  plain  and  unlettered  man  to  invent  a 
useful  machine,  or  composition,  or  preparation  of  matter,  than  it 
is  for  him,  or  even  the  most  scientific  philosopher,  to  describe  the 
invention  he  has  made  with  such  accuracy  and  precision  as  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  other  things  that  were  known  before,  and  thus 
point  out  what  was  old,  and  not  the  object  of  protection,  and  that 
which  is  new,  and  therefore  the  object  of  the  care  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

The  experience  in  Great  Britain  on  this  subject,  from  the  time 
when  patents  received  the  favor  of  Parliament  under  James  I. 
down  to  1836,  was  an  experience  of  continual  and  perpetual  dis- 


PATENT  LAWS.  309 

appointment  of  the  policy  of  the  government  in  fostering  inven- 
tion. The  greatest  and  most  useful  inventions  in  that  country 
were  those  which  were  continually  defeated  by  reason  of  the 
application  of  technical  rules  and  principles  in  the  construction 
of  patents.  Arkwright's  great  invention,  certainly  one  of  the 
most  beneficent  inventions  of  any  age,  was  lost  to  him  for  that 
reason. 

The  same  experience  was  encountered  in  the  United  States  until 
the  same  period ;  and  I  believe  it  was  a  very  general  sentiment 
that  the  system  of  patent  jurisprudence  had  signally  failed. 
Shortly  before  that  time  a  decision  w^as  made  by  Mr.  Justice 
Thompson,  at  the  Circuit,  which  was  afterward  affirmed  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  which  permitted  the  amend- 
ment of  letters  patent  by  the  correction  of  the  specification  when 
it  was  insufficient  upon  judicial  investigation.  The  same  principle 
was  adopted  in  England  in  1836,  and  in  that  way  it  was  incorpo- 
rated into  the  legislation  of  both  countries.  This  is  the  law,  as  it 
now  stands,  for  the  reissue  of  letters  patent. 

About  the  same  period  a  change  came  over  the  disposition  and 
temper  of  judicial  authorities  in  England  and  in  the  United  States. 
Instead  of  encouraging  technical  objections  to  the  defeat  of  meri- 
torious patents,  they  have  in  both  countries,  since  the  date  I  have 
mentioned,  adopted  the  principle  of  sustaining  patents,  as  far  as 
it  could  be  done  by  liberal  and  fair  interpretation.  Nevertheless, 
I  have  had  some  little  experience  for  some  years  in  the  profes- 
sional duties  relating  to  this  subject ;  and  that  experience  has  left 
upon  my  mind  this  general  conviction :  that  a  worthless  patent  is 
never  invaded ;  that  of  good  patents,  five  out  of  eight  are  ren- 
dered worthless  and  unavailing  by  litigation ;  that  there  is  no 
highly  valuable  patent  which  can  reward  the  inventor  within  the 
term  of  fourteen  years,  because  of  the  ruinous  delays  and 
expenses  of  litigation  in  maintaining  it ;  and  that,  therefore,  an 
extension  of  such  patents  becomes  unavoidable  to  carry  into 
effect  the  just  policy  of  the  government,  while  such  extensions 
always  operate  harshly  and  severely  in  continuing  a  monopoly 
which  is  felt  with  much  reason  to  be  c-ppressive  upon  competitors 
in  the  arts. 

Under  these  circumstances  we  have  all  seen — everybody  has 
seen — that  it  would  be  desirable  to  modify  our  judicial  system  so 
that  we  should  have  but  one  proceeding  whereby  to  test  the  valid- 


310  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ity  of  letters  patent,  and  thus  quiet  the  title  of  the  inventor.  The 
scire  facias  has  been  supposed  to  be  a  fit  proceeding  for  that  pur- 
pose. But  its  adoption  in  the  shape  presented  by  the  present  bill 
would  be  attended  with  this  difficulty — that  while  the  patentee 
stands  alone,  he  is  opposed  by  combinations  of  all  the  infringers 
of  his  patent  throughout  the  United  States.  He  cannot  maintain 
his  title  and  secure  just  protection  for  his  property  without  incur- 
ring the  expense  and  the  delay  of  litigation  with  the  infringer  in 
all  the  judicial  districts  of  the  thirty  states  ;  and  the  scire  facias 
being  a  remedy  available  to  the  same  infringers,  in  the  same 
courts,  it  would  be  resorted  to  by  them  throughout  all  the  same 
judicial  districts,  and  thus  double  litigation  already  ruinous.  In 
other  words,  the  patentee  prosecutes  now,  as  plaintiff,  the  infringers 
throughout  the  United  States  at  ruinous  cost  and  expense.  Pass 
this  bill,  and  give  the  defendants  severally  a  scire  facias,  and  they 
would  bring  suits  against  him  as  numerous  as  those  he  is  now 
maintaining  against  them.  The  consequence  would  be  that 
patents  which  are  now  unprofitable,  by  reason  of  excessive  hazards 
and  losses  of  litigation,  would  be  rendered  tenfold  more  worthless 
by  the  increase  of  that  litigation.  And  if  we  can  so  modify  the 
system  that  the  litigation  shall  be  arrested  and  confined  to  a  sin- 
gle issue,  in  which  all  parties  may  participate,  and  which  shall  be 
confined  to  one  place,  we  shall  perhaps  secure  the  objects  we  all 
have  in  view.  Whether  this  can  be  done  or  not,  is  a  question 
which  ought  to  engage  the  attention  of  the  committee  if  the  bill 
should  be  recommitted,  as  I  trust  it  may  be. 

With  a  view  to  justify  my  own  vote  against  this  bill  in  its  pre- 
sent shape,  or  my  vote  for  recommitting  it  for  further  considera- 
tion, I  have  drawn  up  an  amendment,  which  I  do  not  claim  to  be 
perfect  or  complete,  but  which  will  suggest  certain  considerations 
to  the  attention  of  the  committee.  I  propose,  then,  to  insert  at 
the  close  of  the  sixth  section  these  words : 

"  But  only  one  such  proceeding  for  the  repeal  of  letters  patent  shall  be  pending  at 
one  time ;  and  until  the  letters  patent  shall  have  been  judicially  repealed,  they  shall  be 
held  conclusive  evidence  in  all  cases  of  the  question  of  the  originality  of  the'invention 
therein  described." 

My  object  is  to  suggest  the  institution  of  one  judicial  proceed- 
ing or  trial  to  determine  the  validity  of  any  one  patent.  This 
will  give  the  patentee  only  one  place  at  which  to  appear  for  the 
maintenance  of  his  rights ;  and  the  bill  should  be  so  amended  as 
to  summon  and  invite  all  persons  opposing  the  patent  to  appear 


PEON  SLAVERY.  31.1 

and  arrest  it  if  they  can,  and  until  it  should  be  arrested  the  letters 
patent  should  be  deemed  to  convey  and  assure  to  the  inventor  just 
that  title  which  they  import  on  their  face — the  exclusive  use  of 
the  invention. 

It  is  right  that  they  should  have  this  under  our  present  system 
of  patent  legislation,  if  it  be  honestly  and  effectually  adminis- 
tered, because  it  prohibits  the  granting  of  any  letters  patent  until 
it  has  been  ascertained  by  the  government  itself,  upon  due  exami- 
nation, and  under  the  highest  responsibilities,  that  the  invention 
claimed  is  truly  original  on  the  part  of  the  applicant.  The  object 
should  be  to  make  the  title  absolute  until  it  is  repealed,  and  to 
make  it  absolutely  void  when  it  has  been  repealed.  I  am  aware, 
as  I  have  already  said,  of  the  difficulty  which  attends  this  subject. 
I  am  by  no  means  willing  to  say  that  this  amendment  is  practica- 
ble in  all  respects,  or  that  it  would  obviate  the  difficulties  com- 
plained of;  but  if  it  shall  suggest  for  consideration  the  points 
which  I  have  indicated,  it  will  effect  the  purpose  for  which  it  is 
submitted. 


PEON  SLAVEKY.* 

JUNE    6,    1850. 

I  SHALL  with  great  cheerfulness  and  pleasure  record  my  vote  in 
favor  of  the  original  proposition  to  abolish  peon  slavery.  As  it 
was  said  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  CLAY] 
we  have  been  six  months  here  engaged  in  endeavoring  to  admit 
California,  and  I  have  spent  all  the  days  of  those  six  months  en- 
deavoring to  arrest  African  slavery.  Failing  in  that,  to  my  pro- 
found regret,  I  do  not  think  it  ought  to  be  unworthy  of  our  care 
to  prevent  the  enslaving  of  Indians  or  of  any  other  class  or  caste 
of  men.  "We  are  told  that  we  know  nothing  or  not  enough  about 
this  peon  slavery  to  legislate  upon  it.  Sir,  we  have  known  enough 
to  subvert  the  constitution  of  New  Mexico  and  to  undertake  to 
give  it  another,  and  to  subvert  the  constitution  of  Utah  and  to 

*  Remarks,  during  the  debate  on  the  Compromise  Bill,  on  a  proposition  to  abolish 
peon  slavery. 


312  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

attempt  to  give  it  another ;  and  we  know,  therefore,  that  we  ought 
to  understand  the  systems  which  have  prevailed  there,  and  the 
systems  which  ought  to  be  substituted,  if  any,  in  their  place. 
Now,  we  know  this  in  regard  to  peon  servitude — that  it  is  SLAVERY, 
and  that  it  is  slavery  that  is  created  there  either  by  law  or  by  con- 
tract. If  it  is  created  by  law,  and  without  the  consent  and  will  of 
the  slave,  then  it  is  void,  or  ought  to  be,  and  ought  to  be  abolished. 
If  it  be  created  there  by  contract,  then,  sir,  I  have  nevertheless 
no  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  proposition ;  for  I  hold  this  truth 
to  be  self-evident,  that  "  all  men  are  created  equal,"  and  that  they 
have  inalienable  rights,  and  that  among  those  rights  is  LIBERTY. 


THE    COMPEOMISE    BILL. 

JUNE   13,    1860. 

I  SHALL  vote  to  strike  out,  and  for  this  amongst  other  reasons  : 
that  I  hold  the  whole  bill  most  unfortunate  in  its  conception,  most 
injurious  in  its  operations  thus  far,  and  tending  to  most  unhappy 
results. 

The  bill  has  brought  the  business  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  coun- 
try to  a  dead  stand-still.  After  the  lapse  of  six  long  months,  Cali- 
fornia is  yet  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  waiting  admission  ;  whereas, 
if  she  had  been  indulged  in  the  separate  consideration  of  her  claim 
to  which  she  was  entitled,  she  would  have  been  admitted  long  ago. 

If  the  motion  to  strike  out  shall  prevail,  I  think  it  will  strike 
out  one  very  cogent  reason  from  the  argument  in  favor  of  the 
bill ;  that  is,  the  earnest  desire  of  Texas  for  the  territory  lying 
west  of  the  Nueces,  and  northward,  up  to  a  point  twenty  miles 
within  the  ancient  line  of  the  province  of  New  Mexico. 

It  would  be  attended  by  another  consequence.  I  cannot  exactly 
measure  that  consequence  without  knowing  what  is  the  amount 
which  we  are  to  pay  to  Texas  to  buy  our  peace  at  her  hands,  in 
addition  to  the  district  about  twenty  miles  broad,  along  the  whole 
southern  border  of  the  province  of  New  Mexico.  That  sum  may 
be  one  million,  it  may  be  two  millions,  it  may  be  five,  it  may  be 
even  fifteen  millions  of  dollars.  If  it  be  fifteen  millions  of  dollars, 


THE  COMPROMISE  BILL.  313 

I  think  we  shall  strike  out  fifteen  millions  of  sympathies  and  de- 
sires which  are  engaged  in  influencing  the  action  of  the  country 
in  favor  of  this  bill — a  bill  which  might  be  properly  called  "  an 
act  to  hinder,  delay,  and  defeat  the  admission  of  California,"  and 
to  deprive  New  Mexico  not  only  of  a  portion  of  her  territory,  but 
also  to  involve  that  territory  in  the  surrender  of  the  constitution 
which  she  brought  into  this  country  from  Mexico — a  constitution 
of  impartial  freedom,  as  opposed  to  slavery. 

Now,  what  reason  is  given  for  this  ?  The  reason  assigned  is, 
that  it  would  be  better  to  surrender  twenty  miles  along  the  south- 
ern border  of  New  Mexico  to  Texas,  together  with  all  the  country 
lying  between  the  Nueces  and  the  lower  Rio  Grande,  and  thus  to 
save  what  would  remain  of  New  Mexico,  than  to  leave  the  whole 
to  be  wrested  from  us  by  Texas. 

Sir,  I  apprehend  that  Texas  will,  in  the  end,  get  just  exactly  so 
much  of  New  Mexico  as  she  is  entitled  to  and  no  more ;  and  I 
think,  for  one,  that  that  is  just  no  portion  at  all.  It  is  true,  that 
Texas  is  reported  to  us  as  having  sent  an  agent  to  hold  and  so  as 
having  held  an  election  in  the  territory  of  New  Mexico,  or  in  that 
part  of  it  which  it  is  proposed  now  to  bestow  upon  Texas  by  this 
bill.  What  was  the  election  for?  Nobody  tells  us.  What 
magistrate  or  other  officer  was  to  be  elected  ?  Nobody  answers. 
But  it  was  an  election.  Was  it,  then,  a  legal  one,  a  constitutional 
one,  one  conducted  in  due  form,  by  competent  electors  ?  Still  we 
have  no  information.  All  that  is  vouchsafed  to  us  is  that  there 
was  an  election,  and  seven  hundred  votes  were  given.  Manifest- 
ly, then,  it  was  an  election  got  up  by  Texas  for  the  purpose  of 
effect,  in  aid  of  the  claim  of  Texas  to  the  territory  where  it  was 
held.  The  election,  then,  is  only  a  proof  of  an  aggression  by 
Texas,  of  an  invasion,  a  usurpation.  The  announcement  of  such 
an  event  invites  Congress  not  to  surrender  the  territory  invaded 
and  usurped,  but  to  protect  and  defend  it. 

Well,  it  is  said  that  this  is  the  easiest  way  to  protect  and  defend 
it ;  that  is  to  say,  to  protect  and  defend  it  by  giving  it  up.  I  think 
differently,  sir.  I  think  if  this  bill  were  withdrawn,  it  would  be 
perfectly  easy  for  Congress,  by  a  separate  act,  in  accordance  with 
the  recommendation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  on  this 
very  subject,  either  to  draw  the  line  between  Texas  and  New 
Mexico,  or  to  provide  for  the  adjustment  of  this  boundary  by  com- 


314  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

missioners,  or  to  refer  the  subject  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. 

I  am  surprised  to  hear  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
is  thought  so  feeble  that  it  cannot  protect  New  Mexico  in  its  rights. 
The  reason  assigned  is,  that  although  New  Mexico  has  magistrates 
or  alcaldes,  there  is  no  political  government  in  or  over  New  Mex- 
ico, which  is  capable  of  maintaining  and  defending  its  rights. 
Sir,  there  is  a  political  government  over  New  Mexico,  which  is 
bound  to  maintain  and  defend  its  rights,  and  New  Mexico  has 
vehemently  appealed  to  that  government  to  do  its  duty.  That 
government  is  the  United  States  itself.  That  duty  is  the  same, 
whether  we  regard  the  title  or  interest  of  New  Mexico  as  para- 
mount, or  whether  we  regard  New  Mexico  as  a  mere  dependency 
of  the  United  States.  The  matter  comes  back  in  both  cases  to 
precisely  the  same  thing.  Yet  it  is  proposed  that  the  United 
States,  with  Congress  in  session,  with  its  legislative  powers  in 
actual  operation,  and  with  the  civil  and  military  powers  of  the 
government  in  full  vigor,  shall  surrender  at  discretion  to  the  first 
act  of  usurpation  committed  by  one  of  the  states  of  the  Union, 
upon  an  unorganized  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 

Sir,  if  such  a  precedent  shall  be  adopted,  I  know  not  what  other 
measure  would  have  so  pernicious  a  tendency.  It  is  nothing  less 
than  to  invite  aggression,  to  point  out  the  way  to  anarchy,  to  in- 
struct the  members  how  to  rend  the  central  power  in  pieces. 

Sir,  I  should  prefer  any  other  way  to  settle  this  difficulty  rather 
than  this.  Before  I  consent  to  it,  I  want  to  know  the  ground 
upon  which  the  claim  of  Texas  rests.  The  claim  extends  to  the 
forty-second  parallel  of  north  latitude.  Now,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  country  on  the  lower  Rio  Grande,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that 
in  regard  to  the  whole  country  above  El  Paso,  and  up  to  the  forty- 
second  parallel,  it  was  always  included  in  the  province  of  New 
Mexico,  or  in  that  and  other  provinces  in  the  republic  of  Mexico, 
and  never  in  the  province  or  state  of  Texas,  nor  was  Texan  au- 
thority ever  exercised  in  it,  or  pretended  to  be  exercised  in  it, 
before  the  election  last  year,  which  is  made  so  conspicuous  on  this 
occasion. 

If  that  territory  now  belongs  to  Texas,  she  must  have  got  it 
from  somebody,  she  must  have  got  it  somehow,  she  must  have  got 
it  at  some  time.  I  have  sat  here,  willing  to  hear  and  learn  from 
whom  Texas  got  it,  and  in  what  way.  She  produces  no  treaty 


THE   COMPROMISE  BILL.  315 

conveying  it  to  her,  no  deed  or  other  muniment  of  title.  She 
shows  no  act  of  conquest  over  it.  But,  on  the  contrary,  the  whole 
region  was  found  exclusively  in  the  possession  of  Mexico  by  the 
United  States,  and  was  conquered  from  her  by  the  United  States. 
Texas  claims  it  now,  because  she  asserted  a  claim  before  the  war, 
but  did  not  conquer  it.  I  hold  it  to  belong  to  the  United  States, 
because  the  United  States  found  it  in  the  possession  of  Mexico 
and  conquered  it,  and  bought  it.  Texas  picks  out,  not  from  our 
statute  books,  but  from  messages,  reports,  and  other  executive 
documents,  here  and  there  an  expression  that  she  construes  in 
support  of  her  claim.  This  is  balanced,  on  the  other  hand,  by  her 
own  oblivion  of  her  claim,  and  by  other  executive  proceedings 
and  documents  equally  conclusive  against  the  implication.  This 
argument  of  estoppel  is  one  that  can  never  be  set  up  against  New 
Mexico,  even  if  it  could  be  set  up  against  the  United  States,  which 
acts  as  a  trustee  for  the  people  of  the  United  States.  I  cannot  con- 
sent, therefore,  to  buy  from  Texas,  because  she  has  no  title,  and  her 
claim  seems  to  me  to  be  groundless.  I  say  all  this  with  no  disrespect 
or  unkindness  toward  the  State  of  Texas,  with  no  desire  to  do  her 
injustice.  I  cherish  for  her  the  same  regard  and  the  same  solici- 
tude that  I  do  for  any  other  state  in  this  Union.  So  far  from  in- 
dulging antipathy  or  hostility  to  that  state,  I  regard  Texas  as  fully, 
clearly,  and  justly  entitled  to  all  the  money  that  is  likely  to  be 
awarded  to  her  by  this  bill.  I  hold  the  obligations  of  contracts 
made  by  the  states  upon  just  consideration,  concerning  legitimate 
subjects  of  contract,  to  be  sacred  and  inviolable.  Upon  that 
ground,  I  hold  that  Texas  owes  to  her  creditors  all  the  money  that 
she  borrowed  in  her  war  of  independence.  I  hold  that  the  United 
States,  by  extending  her  sovereignty  over  her,  and  thus  protect- 
ing her  against  her  creditors,  became  liable  in  justice  and  in  equity 
to  pay  that  debt.  I  hold  this  to  be  so,  notwithstanding  the  agree- 
ment between  the  United  States  and  Texas,  that  the  United  States 
should  not  pay  the  debt.  The  creditors  were  not  parties  to  that 
agreement.  It  was  known,  or  might  have  been  known  at  that 
time,  that  Texas  could  not  pay  the  debt,  and  that  it  must  go  un- 
paid unless  the  United  States  should  discharge  it.  The  agreement 
itself,  then,  was  an  act  of  flagrant  injustice  and  repudiation.  Now, 
sir,  while  I  will  not  give  one  dollar,  nor  one  cent,  to  a  state  of  this 
Union  to  buy  her  off  from  encroaching  on  the  territory  of  a  pros- 
trate, helpless,  and  conquered  enemy,  whom  it  is  our  duty  to  pro- 


316  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

tect  and  defend  by  other  means,  I  would  pay  to  save  the  faith  of 
any  state,  and  the  faith  and  honor  of  the  United  States,  as  much 
and  as  cheerfully  as  he  that  shall  go  the  furthest  in  that  way.  I 
regret  only,  and  I  think  the  senators  from  Texas,  in  the  further 
progress  of  this  question,  will  find  occasion  to  regret,  that  they 
have  betrayed  distrust  of  the  justice  of  Congress,  by  putting  their 
claim  upon  a  basis  which  will  not  combine  all  who  would  give  it 
their  support,  while  the  basis  is  indefensible  in  itself. 

[In  reply  to  Mr.  CLAY,  Mr.  SEWARD  said :] 

I  regret  very  much  that  the  few  remarks  I  felt  it  my  duty  to 
make  have  rendered  it  necessary,  in  the  opinion  of  the  honorable 
and  distinguished  Senator  from  Kentucky,  that  he  should  reply 
now,  in  the  delicate  condition  of  health  which  is  so  apparent.  No 
one  here  sympathizes  with  him  more  deeply ;  no  one  of  his  numer- 
ous friends  anywhere  sympathizes  with  him,  and  with  the  country, 
more  deeply  than  I  do  in  everything  that  affects  his  health,  his 
happiness,  his  repose,  and  his  fame.  It  is  however,  a  privilege 
which  he  exercises  for  himself  to  examine  subjects  for  himself.  It 
is  a  duty  which  he  has  taught  me,  to  perform  my  duties  by  the 
guidance  of  my  own  judgment,  endeavoring  more  to  be  right  than 
to  agree  with  any  other  man  or  men,  and  even  with  himself. 

I  was  not  aware  that  I  spoke  in  language  of  complaint — I  cer- 
tainly did  not  in  language  of  reproach.  I  expressed  my  opinion 
of  the  result  of  the  measures  which  had  been  adopted  on  the  sug- 
gestions of  the  committee,  which  result  was,  that  the  public  busi- 
ness was  brought  to  a  dead  stand-still. 

The  public  business  is  practically  at  a  stand-still.  We  have  ar- 
rived near  to  that  limit  which  generally  bounds  the  longer  session 
of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  We  are,  moreover,  at  the 
verge  of  the  fiscal  year,  when  new  appropriations  must  be  made 
to  keep  the  government  in  motion,  and  yet  everything  remains 
undone  and  almost  unattempted.  This  embarrassment  has  resulted 
from  some  error  or  from  some  misfortune,  I  do  not  say  which. 

I  have  thought  that  the  great  and  leading  measure  of  the  session 
.was  the  one  commended  to  us  in  the  most  earnest  manner  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States — the  admission  of  California.  Tak- 
ing that  measure,  together  with  the  other  suggestions  in  the  mes- 
sage, and  other  propositions  brought  forward  by  committees  a-s 
the  leading  measures,  the  business  of  the  session  remains  unfinish- 
ed, and  there  are  no  immediate  indications  of  a  change.  This 


THE  COMPROMISE  BILL.  317 

extraordinary  state  of  tilings  has  happened  from  some  cause  and 
in  some  way.  Now,  there  is  a  regular  and  customary  mode  of 
legislation.  It  consists  in  doing  one  thing  at  one  time  and  on  one 
occasion.  The  same  principle  prevails  in  judicial  administration. 
If  a  majority  of  a  court  should  insist  upon  taking  up  the  whole 
calender  of  cases  at  once  ;  swearing  all  the  witnesses  at  once ;  tak- 
ing all  the  evidence  in  all  the  causes  at  once ;  hearing  all  the 
counsel  for  all  the  parties  at  once,  and  sending  all  the  cases  to  the 
jury  at  once,  instructing  them  to  bring  in  one  general  verdict  of 
compromise  or  adjustment  of  the  whole,  and  if  they  should  en- 
counter delays  and  embarrassment,  I  think  they  would  have  little 
reason  to  complain  of  the  minority  of  the  bench  who  should  have 
remonstrated  against  so  extraordinary  a  proceeding.  Now,  sir,  I 
think  sound  legislation  just  as  wisely  and  as  necessarily  inhibits 
multifariousness  of  subjects  and  confusion  of  measures  as  judicial 
administration  does  multifariousness  of  issues  and  confusion  of 
parties.  I  must  beg  leave,  therefore,  with  the  utmost  deference 
to  the  committee,  to  submit  to  the  country  the  departure  from 
accustomed  modes  of  legislation  which  has  occurred,  as  involving 
the  real  cause  which  has  arrested  public  business.  If  there  is  to 
be  a  question  of  responsibility,  it  will  be  awarded  to  those  who, 
being  a  majority,  have  exercised  power  ;  and  not  to  the  minority, 
who  have  constantly,  though  vainly,  endeavored  to  bring  back 
the  Senate  to  the  customary  mode  of  transacting  business.  If  I 
am  asked,  as  indeed  I  am,  how  this  departure  here  operates  upon 
the  other  House,  I  reply  that  the  twTo  Houses  are  not  so  far  apart 
but  that  a  course  of  action  in  one  House,  favoring  or  opposing 
action  in  the  other,  may  be  adopted.  I  cannot  consent  to  the 
passage  of  this  bill  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  admission  of 
California,  because  it  involves  sacrifices  of  other  measures  which 
I  cannot  consent  to  make. 

Sir,  a  majority  of  this  Senate  have  determined  that  they  will 
bring  into  one  bill  various  propositions  upon  which  it  is  known, 
and  must  be  known,  that  Senators  must  disagree,  and  that  there 
must  be  division  of  opinion  not  only,  but  many  lines  of  division. 
The  consequence  is,  that  if  we  vote  for  the  bill  to  obtain  the  mea- 
sures that  we  approve,  we  must  vote  also  for  measures  which  our 
judgments  condemn ;  and  if  we  vote  against  the  bill  on  account 
of  measures  which  \ve  disapprove,  we  must  sacrifice  others  which 
we  desire  to  see  prevail. 

VOL.  1—21. 


318  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  this  course  of  legislation  to  which  I  object.  It  is 
for  this  reason  that  I  shall  vote  to  strike  out  every  feature  of  the 
bill,  as  fast  as  they  are  proposed.  If  we  cannot  break  the  bill 
down  by  a  common  opposition,  I  am  willing  to  take  it  to  pieces 
joint  by  joint,  limb  by  limb ;  and  1  am  ready  to  do  so,  because  he 
who  requires  me  to  vote  for  measures  which  I  disapprove  by 
combining  them  with  those  which  I  do  approve,  seeks  to  control 
my  judgment  by  coercion  ;  and  he  who  surrenders  to  a  combina- 
tion which  is  intended  to  have  this  effect,  surrenders  a  part  of  his 
rights.  For  my  part,  I  never  will  consent  to  any  such  surrender ; 
and  I  am  very  sure  that  I  never  should  engage  in  any  such  con- 
spiracy against  others. 


THE    COMPKOMISE    BILL.* 

JULY    25,    1852. 

I  SUPPOSE  we  are  to  understand  that  the  proposed  commission  is 
to  make  an  honest  and  just  award  upon  the  rights  of  the  respective 
parties  to  the  territoriy  in  question — not  a  partial,  biased,  or  cor- 
rupt one,  but  a  true,  just,  and  fair  award.  Congress  certainly 
would  not  offer  Texas  a  proposition  for  a  commission  to  proceed 
upon  any  other  principle. 

Now,  then,  assuming  that  this  is  to  be  the  character  of  this 
commission,  and  this  its  design,  I  ask  what  is  to  be  the  effect  of 
this  proviso  upon  the  state  of  the  case  committed  to  the  commis- 
sion for  its  consideration  and  adjudication  ?  It  is  a  recognition, 
an  acknowledgment  that  Texas  has  rights  in  regard  to  this  terri- 
tory ;  that  she  has  some  rights  there,  (not  defining  what  they  are,) 
while  the  amendment  is  silent  upon  the  rights  to  be  reserved  to 
the  United  States  and  to  New  Mexico.  This  amendment  of  the 
Senator  from  Texas  leaves  a  strong  implication  against  the  United 
States  and  against  New  Mexico,  and  in  favor  of  pretensions  set 
up  here  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  which  have  been 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  of  the  Compromise  Bill,  proposing  a  joint  commission  to 
he  instituted  by  the  United  States  and  Texas,  for  settling  the  dispute  of  boundaries  be- 
tween Texas  and  New  Mexico. 


THE  COMPROMISE  BILL.  319 

overruled  here,  and  which  the  executive  authority  of  the  United 
States  has  refused  to  acknowledge.  It  will  be  in  vain,  after  this 
commission  shall  have  been  appointed,  to  say  that  this  proviso 
means  nothing;  that  if  Texas  has  acquired  no  rights  since  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  then  that  the  proviso  stipulates  to 
reserve  no  rights.  And  why  ?  Because  Congress  would  not  be 
presumed  to  use  a  form  of  expression  which  would  be  absurd. 
They  will  be  deemed  to  have  considered  and  determined  that 
Texas  has  acquired,  in  some  way,  some  rights  since  the  execution 
of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  And,  if  they  failed  to  de- 
fine what  her  rights  are,  the  commissioners  themselves  must  under- 
take to  determine  what  the  rights  she  acquired  subsequent  to  the 
treaty  are.  And  when  they  come  to  examine  these  rights,  they 
must,  it  seems  to  me,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Congress  as- 
sumes that  Texas  has  acquired  rights  by  extending  her  territory 
since  that  time. 

Now,  for  myself,  I  believe  that  no  action  which  has  been  taken 
by  the  state  of  Texas  since  that  treaty ;  that  110  action  which  has 
been  taken  by  any  military  or  civil  officer  of  the  United  States 
has  affected  that  question  in  the  slightest  degree.  I  believe  that 
the  rights  of  the  parties  (New  Mexico  and  Texas)  remain  precisely 
as  they  were  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  that  treaty,  and  can- 
not be  changed.  I  have,  in  all  the  attention  I  have  bestowed 
upon  this  subject,  looked  upon  the  supposed  estoppels  of  the  United 
States,  by  the  action  of  the  different  functionaries  of  this  govern- 
ment, partial  as  they  wrere  in  their  character,  and  limited  in  their 
authority,  as  having  no  bearing  on  this  subject.  But  this  commis- 
sion will  not  be  at  liberty  so  to  treat ;  and  therefore  they  will 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  Texas  has  acquired  some  rights. 

Now,  I  say  that  if  Texas  has  acquired  any  rights  by  any  action 
of  her  own,  then  NewT  Mexico  has  acquired  rights  by  her  action. 
If  Texas,  by  taking  possession  of  El  Paso,  by  holding  an  election 
there,  as  is  contended,  has  acquired  any  right  in  that  region,  then 
I  hold  that  New  Mexico,  by  holding  a  convention,  and  denying 
the  jurisdiction  of  Texas,  and  establishing  a  constitution  for  her- 
self, has  equally  acquired  rights  which  are  to  be  upheld  against 
the  pretensions  of  Texas.  And  again,  if  the  action  of  the  execu- 
tive or  military  officers  of  the  United  States  has  given  an  advan- 
tage, then  I  insist,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  subsequent  action 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  in  consenting  to  the  erec- 


320  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

tion  of  a  provisional  state  government  within  the  region  of  New- 
Mexico,  is  to  be  taken  as  an  act  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
disaffirming  the  right  of  Texas,  and  conceding  to  New  Mexico  her 
rights. 

It  is,  therefore,  that  I  am  opposed  to  this  amendment,  not  for 
what  it  contains,  but  for  what  it  does  not  contain.  It  must  be 
equal,  before  I  can  agree  to  adopt  it.  If  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  come  to  the  conclusion  to  give  this  whole  territory 
of  New  Mexico  to  Texas,  let  it  be  done  at  once.  I  am  willing  to 
submit,  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  submit,  to  any  deci- 
sion that  Congress  may  make  on  this  question.  Texas  is  the  only 
party  who  refuses  to  submit.  I  want  no  delay  in  settling  this 
question  of  boundary ;  I  do  not  want  to  wait  one,  two,  or  three 
years  for  its  settlement.  I  want  no  intervention  of  commissioners ; 
I  want  no  armistice ;  I  want  no  war.  I  propose  to  have  the  mat- 
ter settled  in  a  constitutional  way.  Nobody  here  has  resisted  the 
settlement  of  this  controversy  between  Texas  and  New  Mexico. 
The  only  resistance  that  has  been  oifered,  has  been  resistance  to 
the  measure  which  was  proposed  ;  first,  because  it  was  connected 
with  other  questions,  and  other  measures,  to  which  it  had  no  rela- 
tion, and  upon  which  it  had  an  injurious  tendency ;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  because  the  plan  of  settling  it,  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Thirteen,  was  supposed  to  be  improper  in  itself. 

Now,  it  appears  that  the  latter  objection  was  well  taken.  The 
plan  which  we  have  resisted  has  been  abandoned  and  cast  to  the 
winds,  and  we  have  now  another  one  submitted  to  us.  This  may 
obtain  favor  in  the  Senate  ;  it  might  obtain  favor  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.  There  would  be  much  greater  opportunity  for 
settling  this  question  directly,  if  it  were  separated  from  this  bill. 
For  myself,  I  have  not  the  least  desire  to  oppose  any  just  claim  of 
Texas.  I  believe  that  Texas  has  better  claims  upon  the  treasury 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  payment  of  her  revolutionary  debt, 
than  she  has  for  territory. 

Sir,  I  am  willing  to  meet  'this  question.  If  I  am  overruled,  I 
am  willing  to  submit.  I  only  insist  that,  if  we  establish  this  com- 
mission, we  shall  submit  the  case  to  the  commissioners  justly  and 
fairly  ;  and  not  make  up  the  case  for  them.  And  now,  what  rea- 
son is  there  for  excluding  all  affirmance  of  the  right  and  title  of 
New  Mexico,  and  all  affirmance  of  the  right  and  title  of  the 
United  States,  and  recognizing  indirectly  the  rights  of  Texas?  I 


AMIN  BEY.  321 

have  heard  no  reason,  except  that  Texas  is  armed  for  resistance 
against  the  United  States.  Then,  I  ask,  whether  it  has  come  to 
this,  that  the  state  of  Texas,  by  assuming  an  attitude  of  resistance 
to  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  dictate  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  her  own  terms,  her  own  time,  her  own  extent 
of  dominion,  and  her  own  extent  of  compensation  or  equivalent  ? 
I,  for  one,  am  not  prepared  to  sanction  any  such  proposition. 


AMIN  BEY.* 

I  THANK  the  honorable  Senator  who  has  recalled  the  incident  of 
the  visit  of  the  ambassador  who  came  with  a  present  from  the 
Imaum  of  Muscat.  If  I  remember  well,  the  ambassador  was  not' 
in  the  roll  of  common  men.  He  was  a  minister  at  home — a 
Secretary  of  State.  I  passed  through  the  navy  yard,  at  Brooklyn, 
with  him.  Among  the  objects  of  curiosity  .and  interest  there,  I 
pointed  his  notice  to  an  exquisite  bust  of  Washington.  He  looked 
upon  it  thoughtfully,  and  inquired  "  who  was  Washington  ?"  Shall 
we  not  instruct  the  Oriental  nations  in  our  arts  and  civilization  ? 
How  shall  we  instruct  them  if  we  do  not  first  win  them  to  visit 
our  shores?  I  think  that  the  quality  of  hospitality,  like  the 
"  quality  of  mercy," 

" is  twice  blessed  : 

It  blesseth  him  tliat  gives,  and  him  that  takes ; 
'Tis  mightiest  in  the  mightiest" 

If  we  were  seeking  how  such  a  nation  as  this  might  employ  the 
small  sum  indicated  in  the  most  beneficial  manner,  I  think  we 
should  find  it  in  disseminating  among  the  nations  and  the  people 
of  the  East  knowledge  of  the  institutions,  the  arts  and  the  history 
of  the  West — knowledge  of  the  progress  of  human  society.  The 
Turk  is  a  willing  learner.  Let  us  receive  him  with  the  rites  of 
his  own  native  hospitality. 

*  Kemarks  on  a  donation  of  $10,000  to  Arain  Bey,  a  commissioner  from  the  Sultan  of 
Turkey,  the  first  diplomatic  agent  from  that  power. 


322  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


PRE-EMPTION  PRIVILEGES  TO  EMIGRANTS.* 

SEPTEMBER   17,   1850. 

NOTE. — Mr.  Mason  moved  to  amend  a  pre-emption  bill  by  striking  out  the  words 
"  and  all  persons  who  shall  have  made  declaration  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States." 

MB.  PRESIDENT, — I  shall  vote  against  this  amendment  of  the 
Senator  from  Virginia,  as  T  am  sure  every  senator  would  who 
might  have  taken  the  trouble  to  go  into  the  western  states  and  see 
how  they  are  colonized.  I  shall  refer  to  Wisconsin  for  illustra- 
tion. I  think  it  is  now  fifteen  years  since  the  state  of  Wisconsin, 
or  what  is  now  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  contained  a  population  of 
only  about  five  thousand  souls,  then  organized  as  a  territory, 
together  with  Iowa,  under  the  care  of  the  honorable  Senator 
opposite,  [Mr.  DODGE]  as  its  Governor.  In  the  space  of  fifteen 
years,  Wisconsin  has  grown  to  be  a  state,  numbering  four  hundred 
thousand  people,  which  is  a  population  nearly  equal  to  one-seventh 
part  of  the  population  of  the  greatest  state  in  the  Union.  Any 
person  who  has  visited  that  region  cannot  have  failed  to  see  that, 
in  all  which  goes  to  constitute  the  elements  of  political  strength 
and  wealth,  of  moral  and  political  power,  it  is  worthy  of  being 
ranked  among  the  most  prosperous  and  happy  communities  in  the 
world. 

Now,  sir,  I  think  if  a  census  were  taken  so  as  to  discriminate 
between  those  of  foreign  birth,  and  those  who  are  natives  of  the 
Onited  States,  there  would  be  found  among  the  whole  population 
of  Wisconsin  one-half  who  by  birth  are  foreigners,  and  who  went 
upon  the  public  domain  as  such.  And  yet  I  think  no  community 
on  earth  shows  more  of  industry  and  thrift,  and  gives  higher 
evidence  of  social  improvement  and  of  republican  loyalty  and 
patriotism.  It  is  upon  such  observations  as  these  that  I  have 

*  Remarks  on  admitting  emigrants  to  privileges  of  pre-emption  on  the  public  domain. 


MINING  PRIVILEGES.  323 

adopted  the  conclusion,  that  the  welfare  of  this  country  requires 
that  the  invitation,  if  I  may  call  it  so,  should  be  freely  extended 
to  foreigners,  and  that  the  privilege  should  be  allowed  to  them  as 
well  as  to  our  own  citizens  to  fill  up  the  lands  of  the  west,  and 
that  the  more  speedily  they  shall  be  so  filled  up  the  better. 


MINING   PRIVILEGES    TO   EMIGRANTS.* 

SEPTEMBER  24,  1850. 

I  MOVE  to  amend  the  bill  by  adding  after  the  word  "  citizen,"  in 
the  second  section,  the  words,  "  and  persons  who  shall  have,  in 
pursuance  of  law,  declared  their  intention  to  become  such,"  so  as 
to  make  the  section  read : 

"  That  the  said  agents,  each  within  his  district,  shall  have  authority  to  grant  permita 
to  American  citizens  [and  persons  who  shall,  in  pursuance  of  law,  have  declared  their 
intentions  to  become  such]  to  work  the  placers  on  public  land  by  manual  labor,  and  also 
to  work  by  mining  and  quarrying  the  mineral  lodes  or  veins  occurring  in  the  work,  by 
machinery  driven  by  horse,  steam,  or  water  power,  and  every  permit  shall  specify  for 
which  kind  of  mining  it  is  granted." 

I  discover  that  this  bill  contemplates  a  restraining  of  its  benefits 
to  American  citizens.  The  amendment  I  offer,  proposes  to  extend 
them  to  those  who  shall  have  declared  their  intentions  to  become 
citizens,  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law. 

At  this  late  stage  of  the  session  there  is  no  time  for  discussing 
the  principle  involved  in  this  amendment.  That  principle,  how- 
ever, was  adopted  in  the  bill  for  disposing  of  the  public  domain 
in  Oregon,  which  was  recently  passed.  I  gave  my  reasons  for 
adopting  it  on  that  occasion. 

I  will  add  now  only  this,  that  the  objects  of  the  United  States 
in  regard  to  the  gold  mines  in  California,  should  be,  in  the  first 
place,  to  bring  to  the  general  public  use  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  the  largest  possible  acquisition  of  national  wealth 
from  their  newly-discovered  fountains ;  and,  secondly,  to  render 
the  mining  operations  conducive  to  the  best  and  speediest  possible 
settlement  of  our  vast  countries  on  the  Pacific  coast,  which  are  so 
soon  to  exercise  boundless  commercial,  social,  and  political  influ- 

*  Remarks  on  admitting  emigrants  to  the  mines  in  California. 


324  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE.  . 

ences  over  the  Eastern  world.  The  pecuniary  wealth  and  the 
political  power  thus  to  be  obtained,  will  be  obtained  just  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  and  assiduity  of  the  persons  who  shall  be 
engaged  in  working  the  mines  of  California.  That  number  and 
that  assiduity  will  be  in  exact  proportion  to  the  liberality  of  the 
terms  upon  which  the  mines  shall  be  opened.  It  was  on  this 
ground  that  I  voted  against  the  proposition  of  my  honorable  friend 
from  Ohio,  [Mr.  EWING]  which  contemplated  seniorage  and  reve- 
nue to  the  government  from  these  mines,  and  in  favor  of  the  pro- 
vision contained  in  the  bill,  which  stipulates  for  nothing  in  the 
way  of  revenue,  but  enough  to  pay  the  expenses  of  regulating  the 
operations  in  the  mines.  Moreover,  distinctions  between  races 
I  and  castes  are  vices  in  any  constitution  of  government;  and  I 
*  venture  to  say,  that  if  we  now  refuse  to  discriminate  in  California 
in  favor  of  those  who  are  already  citizens  and  those  who  are  in 
process  of  becoming  so,  we  shall  happily  crush  in  the  bud  that 
principle  of  native  Americanism  which,  if  allowed  to  ripen,  would 
there,  as  elsewhere,  produce  only  bitter  fruits. 

I  will  say  a  few  words  in  reply  to  one  or  two  remarks  of  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Georgia,  [Mr.  DAWSOX.]  He  asked  whose 
were  the  lives  that  were  sacrificed,  and  whose  were  the  moneys 
that  were  expended  in  the  conquest  of  California  ?  I  think  I  may 
venture  to  say  that  more  than  half  of  those  lives  were  the  lives 
of  men  born  aliens  from  our  commonwealth.  It  is  certain  that 
the  commanding  general,  who  closed  that  conquest  with  unexam- 
pled brilliancy,  [General  SCOTT]  thought  it  his  duty,  in  the  very 
hour  of  triumph,  in  the  Palace  of  the  Aztecs,  to  declare  to  the 
world  his  high  appreciation  of  the  valor,  and  the  American  loyalty 
of  the  troops  of  foreign  birth  who  had  fought  under  his  standard. 
The  moneys  expended  were  the  treasure  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  precisely  because  that  conquest  has  cost  money  and  blood  that 
I  desire  to  make  its  achievement  redound  as  much  as  is  at  all  pos- 
sible to  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the  United  States.  I  know 
that  the  way  to  attain  that  object  is  to  engage  the  largest  number 
of  persons  with  the  largest  liberty  in  drawing  forth  the  hidden 
treasures  of  the  earth  in  California. 

Again  :  I  cannot  see  any  difference  between  this  case  and  the 
case  of  the  public  lands  in  Oregon,  to  which  I  have  referred. 
The  settler  in  Oregon  cannot  obtain  land  without  going  upon  and 
actually  occupying  it ;  so  the  settler  in  California  cannot  obtain  a 


MINING  PRIVILEGES.  325 

benefit  from  the  mines  without  obtaining  a  permit  and  planting 
himself  upon  the  rocks  or  the  sands  from  which  the  gold  is  to  be 
extracted.  When  he  has  done  that,  he  is  deriving  the  subterra- 
nean wealth  from  the  soil ;  just  as  the  farmer  is  deriving  his  gains 
from  its  surface.  The  policy  is  the  same  in  both  cases ;  it  is  to 
cover  the  earth  with  population  as  fast  as  possible,  and  to  distri- 
bute the  wealth  acquired  as  broadly  as  possible. 

But  the  honorable  Senator  from  Georgia  fears  that  foreigners 
admitted  to  these  mines  will  extract  the  wealth  and  leave  the 
country,  carrying  away  the  spoils.  Sir,  such  as  this  has  not  been 
the  history. of  this  country  or  of  any  part  of  it.  It  is  a  country 
which  invites  foreigners  by  the  exposure  of  new  and  virgin  sources 
of  wealth,  and  by  the  inducements  of  peace  and  of  all  political 
blessings.  It  has  invited  them  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
past,  and  we  are  all  here  by  reason  of  these  inducements.  Does 
any  senator  know  an  alien  who  has  ever  recorded  a  declaration  of 
his  intention  to  become  an  American  citizen,  and  then  turned 
back  to  his  native  allegiance  ? 

But  it  is  said  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  California,  [Mr. 
FREMONT]  that  the  people  of  the  countries  bordering  on  California, 
and  who  would  go  from  these  countries  to  the  mines,  are  of  very 
doubtful  character.  But  I  beg  leave  to  say  to  that  honorable 
senator,  that  from  the  first  hour  that  an  American  state  or  colony 
was  planted  here,  it  has  been  continually  said  of  all  foreigners 
who  followed  them,  that  they  were  of  doubtful  character.  And 
yet  it  has  happened  that  a  period  of  five  years  has  always  been 
enough  to  dissipate  these  doubts  and  fears,  and  we  are  made  up 
a  whole  homogeneous  nation  of  such  accessions.  Some  five  years 
ago,  when  ascending  one  of  the  lakes,  I  went  on  board  of  a  steam- 
boat at  Detroit,  at  night,  and  made  my  way  through  six  hundred 
emigrants  sleeping  on  the  decks ;  they  were  all  foreigners  of 
doubtful  character,  and  they  constituted  a  population  sufficient  for 
a  township.  This  was  the  freight  of  only  one  of  half  a  dozen 
steamers  equally  burdened  with  just  such  doubtful  foreigners. 
They  are  quietly  dispersed  through  the  West,  and  now  they  are 
all  loyal  American  citizens.  The  only  difference  that  I  can  see 
between  a  citizen  by  birth  and  one  by  adoption  is,  that  the  one 
was  made  a  citizen  by  his  ancestors,  and  the  other  by  his  own 
voluntary  action. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  California  will  excuse  me  for  say- 


326  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ing,  with  the  utmost  deference  to  him  and  to  the  generous  new 
state  he  represents,  that  I  think  that  the  legislature  of  that  state, 
by  making  a  discrimination  between  native  citizens  and  foreigners, 
acted  unwisely  in  regard  to  the  permanent  welfare,  peace,  happi- 
ness, and  prosperity  of  the  whole  country.  It  is  because  I  con- 
sider that  provision  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  state,  and 
consequently  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  republic,  that  I  have 
offered  this  amendment  for  the  purpose  of  repudiating  the  policy 
of  exclusion  of  foreigners. 

My  honorable  friend  from  Georgia  [Mr.  DAWSON]  will  now  per- 
mit me  to  say  that  I  have  never,  here  nor  elsewhere,  put  the  broad 
policy  of  naturalization  which  I  advocate  upon  the  ground  merely 
of  charity,  or  on  the  ground  of  humanity.  These,  indeed,  are 
considerations  which  are  by  no  means  foreign  to  the  question.  I 
shall  not  deny  that  they  have  their  weight  in  my  judgment.  Nihil 
humanum puto  alienum.  But  I  have  advocated  that  policy  here 
and  elsewhere,  because  I  regarded  the  interests  of  the  whole 
American  family  as  demanding  the  practice  of  not  only  the  largest 
civil  liberty,  but  also  the  opening  of  the  door  to  the  privileges  of 
citizenship  widely  and  freely  to  all  who  may  desire  to  enter. 


COMMEKCE    OF   THE   PACIFIC. 

SEPTEMBER    28,    1850. 

THE  argument  in  favor  of  striking  out  this  portion  proceeds 
upon  two  grounds — one  that  the  United  States  have  not  as  high  a 
responsibility  to  discharge  toward  the  mercantile  marine  as  they 
have  to  discharge  toward  the  national  marine ;  and  the  other  that 
it  has  not  as  much  interest  in  the  former  as  it  has  in  the  latter. 
Xow,  I  understand  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  regulate 
commerce,  and  that  the  government  is  charged  with  the  respon- 
sibility of  providing  all  that  is  necessary  for  the  repair  of  vessels 
on  the  Pacific,  as  well  of  the  commercial  as  of  the  national  marine. 
It  certainly  has  as  high  an  interest  in  it ;  for  it  connects  itself  im- 
mediately with  the  revenue  of  the  country,  upon  which  the  govern- 
ment depends  for  its  subsistence.  If  this  be  so,  then  it  is  right  for 


COMMERCE  OF  THE  PACIFIC.  327 

Congress — there  being  no  other  provision  for  the  merchant  marine 
—to  open  their  dry  dock  for  that  purpose,  especially  if  it  can  be 
done  without  serious  inconvenience  to  the  public  marine.  Now, 
we  know  the  fact  that  there  is  no  such  provision  there  for  the 
merchant  marine  ;  and  is  there  any  immediate  prospect  that  there 
will  be  one  made  by  private  enterprise  ?  'No  I  What,  then,  will 
be  the  consequence  of  refusing  the  advantages  of  this  dock  to  our 
merchant  vessels  ?  Not  only  our  commerce  on  the  Pacific  coast, 
but  our  navigation  to  China  also,  will  be  deprived  of  the  benefits 
growing  out  of  such  an  establishment. 

No  one,  I  think,  can  deny  that  a  dry  dock  at  a  navy  yard  is  ne- 
cessary, whenever  one  shall  be  required  upon  our  Pacific  coast. 
If  it  be  begun  now,  it  cannot  be  accomplished  too  soon,  because 
no  one  can  foresee  the  necessities  of  political  events  which  will 
render  it  necessary.  J  assume,  then,  that  a  dry  dock  is  to  be  built, 
and  a  navy  yard  to  be  built  somewhere  upon  the  Pacific  coast.  I 
think  it  is  clear  that  it  ought  to  be  begun  now.  Then,  the  only 
consideration  remaining  is,  whether  there  is  anything  to  be  saved 
by  postponing  this  matter  until  another  session  of  Congress.  The 
economy,  if  there  be  any,  must  consist  in  getting  better  terms  at 
another  time.  I  know  of  no  reason  to  suppose  that  that  can  be 
done.  The  delay  will  not  be  merely  from  this  time  until  the  com- 
mencement of  the  next  session  of  Congress  ;  but,  by  the  experience 
we  have  all  had,  we  know  that  it  will  be  a  delay  until  the  end  of 
the  next  session  of  Congress,  because  bills  of  this  class  never  pass 
until  just  at  the  close  of  the  session.  It  will,  then,  be  a  postpone- 
ment of  the  commencement  of  this  operation  from  now  until  next 
spring.  We  shall  have  lost  nearly  six  months. 

In  regard  to  the  location,  in  any  event,  that  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  Secretary  of  War.  In  regard  to  the  estimates  of  construc- 
tion, that,  in  any  event,  is  to  be  determined  by  his  discretion,  and 
not  by  the  discretion  of  Congress.  This,  then,  refers  to  him  now 
what  must,  in  any  event,  be  referred  to  him,  and  anticipates,  if 
possible,  the  period  when  we  may  suffer  for  want  of  a  dry  dock 
upon  the  Pacific  coast.  I  see  no  reason  why  the  appropriation 
should  not  pass. 


328        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


A  MINT  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

MAY   24,   1850. 

CEKTAESTLY,  I  am  of  opinion,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  very 
desirable  there  should  be  a  branch  mint  in  California,  and  that  it 
should  be  established  as  speedily  as  possible.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  a  great  loss  is  sustained  by  the  youthful  community  rising 
there,  which,  struggling  with  so  many  embarrassments,  can  ill 
afford  the  loss  resulting  from  the  necessity  of  shipping  bullion 
and  gold  dust  to  other  parts  of  the  world,  for  the  purpose  of 
coinage.  I  shall,  therefore,  be  most  happy  on  all  occasions,  after 
the  state  of  California  shall  have  become  a  member  of  this  Union, 
or  even  before  that  time,  while  she  remains  a  part  of  this  empire, 
to  vote  for  a  branch  mint,  whenever  a  bill  for  that  purpose  shall 
come  before  the  Senate. 

The  question  of  establishing  a  mint  in  Charleston,  is  one  upon 
which  my  mind  has  not  been  engaged.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
that  I  would  vote,  or  ought  to  vote,  for  the  establishment  of  a 
mint  at  that  place ;  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  say,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  I  ought  not  so  to  vote.  I  am  not  particularly  informed 
at  this  time,  of  the  state  of  mining  operations  in  South  Carolina, 
in  Virginia,  in  Georgia,  in  Alabama,  and  elsewhere  in  the  southern 
portion  of  the  Union,  without  which  knowledge  my  vote  could  not 
be  given.  But  I  submit  to  those  who  have  offered  these  amendments, 
whether,  if  it  be  their  object,  as  it  undoubtedly  is,  to  obtain  the 
separate  institutions  which  they  propose,  it  is  not  as  prudent  .and 
as  wise — as  it  certainly  is  fair  and  just — to  detach  them  from  this 
bill,  which  may  be  overpowered  by  a  combined  opposition  to  the 
whole  three  measures,  when  at  least  one,  and  perhaps  all  of  them, 
might,  severally,  obtain  the  favor  of  the  Senate  ?  I  hope,  there- 
fore, that  this  bill  may  be  put  distinctly  upon  its  own  proper 


A  MINT  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK.  329 

merits.  And  I  confess  that  the  very  learned  and  elaborate  argu- 
ment submitted  to  us  some  time  ago,  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Missouri,  [Mr.  BENTON]  has  so  far  fortified  my  own  objec- 
tions to  the  process  of  legislative  "  tacking,"  as  to  make  me  more 
unwilling  than  ever  to  combine  several  different  and  discordant 
propositions  in  one  bill. 

Mr.  President,  what  is  the  necessity  for  a  mint  anywhere  ?  It 
is  for  the  sole  purpose — or,  at  least,  chiefly  for  the  purpose — of 
saving  our  mercantile  community,  and,  through  them,  the  whole 
people,  the  loss  and  expense  incident  to  the  transportation  of  bul- 
lion to  foreign  mints,  for  the  purpose  of  being  coined,  and  thus 
converted  into  money,  in  which  shape  only  the  metal  is  adapted 
to  the  uses  of  commerce  as  a  medium  of  exchange.  The  expense 
of  assaying  and  coinage,  is  an  expense  which  the  government 
ought  to  bear,  and  ought  to  bear  freely  and  fully.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  government  to  perform  the  function  of  coinage  for  the 
citizen,  because  it  assumes  to  furnish  to  the  citizen  the  currency 
which  he  needs,  while  it  excludes  him  from  furnishing  it  himself. 
Our  government  undertakes  to  perform  this  function  without  seig- 
niorage or  charge — stipulating  only,  that  the  citizen  shall  supply 
the  metal  to  be  assayed  and  coined.  Since  the  government  has 
assumed  it  exclusively,  they  ought  to  perform  it  in  that  way  which 
will  be  least  expensive  to  the  mercantile  community,  and  which, 
of  course,  will  devolve  the  least  burden  upon  the  country. 

Now  the  commerce  of  this  country  and  of  this  continent  is  con- 
centrated in  one  port.  It  is  there  that  money  is  to  be  used  and 
employed ;  it  is  there  that  bullion  and  money  are  to  be  imported 
and  exported  ;  and  it  is  there  that  coin,  first  and  principally,  is  to 
be  used  as  the  medium  of  exchange  of  the  productions  of  all 
countries  and  of  all  climes.  Where,  then,  ought  to  be  the  mint 
which  furnishes  this  medium  of  exchange  ?  If  anywhere,  it 
ought  to  be  as  near  as  possible  to  the  wharves  from  which  it  is  to 
be  exported,  and  where  it  is  to  be  imported,  and  where  the 
exchanges  of  which  it  is  the  agent  are  to  be  made.  It  ought  to 
be  there,  instead  of  being,  as  it  now  is,  at  a  distance  of  one  hun- 
dred miles  from  the  place  where  its  functions  are  to  be  performed. 
Every  argument  which  can  be  brought  for  maintaining  that  the 
mint  of  the  chief  commercial  port  of  the  Union  should  be  located 
at  a  distance  of  one  hundred  miles  from  its  wharves,  would  apply 
with  equal  justice  and  equal  force  in  favor  of  transferring  the  seat 


330  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

of  the  collection  of  the  customs  to  the  same  distance.  So  that, 
according  to  this  principle,  we  ought  to  have  our  custom-houses  in 
Philadelphia  for  transacting  the  mercantile  business  of  the  city  of 
New  York. 

The  argument  of  the  Senator  from  Maryland,  [Mr.  PEAECE] 
conceded  the  whole  point,  when  he  said  that,  if  the  question  was 
in  the  first  instance  upon  establishing  a  mint  for  the  United  States, 
the  convenience  of  trade,  he  should  think,  would  be  a  conclusive 
argument  for  locating  it  in  the  city  of  New  York.  And  the  argu- 
ment of  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  COOPER]  brings  us 
to  precisely  the  same  conclusion,  when  he  says,  that  if  a  mint 
shall  be  established  in  New  York,  the  institution  in  Philadelphia 
will  expire,  notwithstanding  it  is  supported  by  the  patronage  and 
favor  of  the  government,  and  all  the  commercial  interests  of  that 
great  and  flourishing  city.  We  are  told,  indeed,  by  the  Senator 
from  Maryland,  that  at  most  there  can  be  but  an  expense  of  thirty 
thousand  dollars  a  year  to  be  saved  to  the  mercantile  community 
by  the  establishment  of  a  mint  at  New  York.  I  say,  sir,  with  all 
due  deference,  that  even  that  expense  is  more  than  the  govern- 
ment has  a  right  to  impose  upon  the  commercial  community,  inas- 
much as  the  government  has  undertaken  to  furnish  coin,  and  com- 
merce requires  that  the  expense  of  furnishing  it  should  be  made 
as  small  as  possible.  But  who  can  tell  us  the  amount  of  loss  that 
is  sustained  by  the  exportation  of  bullion,  and  even  unassayed 
gold  dust,  to  Europe,  to  avoid  the  loss,  risk,  and  delay,  of  trans- 
portation to  and  from  Philadelphia  for  purposes  of  coinage  ? 

Mr.  President,  let  us  meet  a  great  question  directly  and  justly. 
The  mint  was  rightly  established  in  Philadelphia.  "When  it  was 
established  there,  the  commerce  of  the  country  was  there.  But 
now  commerce  has  changed  its  haunts.  The  commerce  of  the 
country  has  concentrated,  and  the  commerce  of  the  world  is  con- 
centrating, at  New  York.  The  government  must  accommodate 
itself  to  the  change  of  times  and  of  circumstances,  or  maintain  a 
conflict  in  which  it  must  be  overborne.  Sooner  or  later  we  shall 
come  to  this  conclusion — the  sooner,  of  course,  the  safer  and  more 
wise.  I  say  nothing  to  the  prejudice  of  Philadelphia,  nothing  in 
hostility  to  its  interests  or  its  commerce,  or  to  the  mint  established 
there.  Let  it  stand  and  perform  all  the  functions  required  of  it. 
But  let  us,  at  the  same  time,  provide  for  the  performance  of  those 


A  MINT  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK.  331 

same  functions  where  they  have  become  necessary,  and  even  abso- 
lutely indispensable. 

The  communication  which  has  just  been  read  shows  this  extra- 
ordinary fact,  that,  owing  to  the  failure  of  the  mint  at  Philadel- 
phia to  coin  the  amount  of  bullion  and  foreign  coin  sent  from 
New  York  to  Philadelphia  in  proper  time,  the  government  has 
been  obliged  to  resort  to  the  expedient  of  sending  an  agent  from 
Philadelphia  to  New  York  to  pay  off  ./the  amount  of  certificates 
given  to  merchants  and  bankers  in  that  city  for  gold  sent  to  be 
coined  at  Philadelphia ;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  mint  in  Philadel- 
phia has  been  under  the  necessity  of  using  the  sub-treasury  of  the 
city  of  New  York  to  pay  out  the  coin  collected  there,  and  thus  to 
relieve  the  pressure  which  has  been  created  for  want  of  sufficient 
coinage.  I  think  that  this  circumstance  alone  shows  the  necessity 
and  the  great  importance  of  establishing  a  mint  in  the  city  of 
New  York. 

But  it  has  been  asked,  of  what  use  and  to  whom  is  the  use  of 
establishing  a  branch  mint  in  the  city  of  New  York  ?  I  answer 
that  the  expense,  the  loss,  and  the  burden,  which  falls  upon  the 
community  of  New  York,  has  been,  at  various  times,  not  less  than 
fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year  for  want  of  a  mint  in  that  city.  But 
it  is  said  that  some  of  the  gold  which  would  be  coined  at  that 
mint  is  extracted  from  the  mines  in  California,  and  it  is  asked 
what  would  be  the  use  of  a  mint  in  the  city  of  New  York  ?  I 
answer,  that  the  very  same  reason  which  dictates  the  necessity  of 
a  branch  mint  at  California  ;  the  same  necessity  which  would  pre- 
scribe its  establishment  there,  prescribes,  with  equal  if  not  greater 
force,  the  necessity  of  establishing  a  branch  mint  in  the  city  of 
New  York.  What  is  the  necessity  or  object  of  a  mint  anywhere  ? 
It  is  to  receive  the  gold  which  is  uncoined,  whether  in  bullion,  or 
in  ingots,  or  in  foreign  coin,  and  convert  it  into  money,  which  will 
be  received  and  passed  by  our  mercantile  operations  into  circula- 
tion in  the  country.  Now,  then,  it  appears  that  the  gold  which  is 
extracted  from  the  mines  in  California  does  not  go  into  circulation 
without  subjecting  the  miner  to  a  loss  of  two  dollars  upon  every 
ounce  ;  and  therefore  it  is  apparent  that,  by  the  establishment  of 
a  mint  there,  the  sum  of  two  dollars  upon  every  ounce  of  Cali- 
fornia gold  is  saved  to  the  country.  Now,  take  the  other  alterna- 
tive. Ten  times  as  much  gold  comes  annually  into  this  country 
by  the  way  of  the  city  of  New  York  as  has  yet  been  received 


332  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

from  the  mines  of  California.  This  is  foreign  gold,  much  of  it 
foreign  coin ;  and  as  it  comes  into  the  city  of  New  York,  so  it 
goes  back  again,  without  being  recoined,  and  it  does  not  therefore 
enter  into  our  circulation  ;  and  the  reason  is,  that  it  cannot  be 
circulated  as  money,  because,  not  having  received  the  stamp,  the 
impression  of  the  government,  it  is  not  practically  circulating  coin. 
It  is  a  collection  of  coins  from  other  countries,  every  piece  of  which 
has  to  be  weighed  every  time  it  is  received  or  paid  out,  precisely 
like  the  gold  in  California.  The  argument,  therefore,  which 
proves  the  necessity  of  establishing  a  branch  mint  at  California, 
proves  equally  the  necessity  of  the  establishment  of  a  branch 
mint  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and  the  question  in  both  cases  is 
precisely  the  same  ;  that  is,  whether,  in  California,  you  will  estab- 
lish a  mint  at  the  mines  where  the  gold  is  gathered,  or  take  it  to  a 
distance  of  a  hundred  miles  :  so,  if  you  are  to  have  a  mint  on  the 
Atlantic  coast,  the  question  is,  whether  it  should  be  at  the  point 
where  the  most  gold  is  imported,  or  whether  it  should  be  a  hun- 
dred miles  from  that  point  ? 


SENATORIAL   TEEM.* 

FEBRUARY   7,   1851. 

NOTE. — The  credentials  of  Robert  Rantoul,  chosen  by  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts 
a  senator  for  that  state  for  the  seat  occupied  by  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  under  an  appoint- 
ment by  the  governor  of  that  state,  were  presented ;  but  Mr.  Rantoul  had  not  yet  appeared 
to  claim  his  seat.  Mr.  Winthrop  retired  from  the  Senate.  But  thereupon,  Mr.  DAVIS, 
of  Massachusetts,  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

"Resolved — That  a  senator  appointed  by  the  executive  of  a  state  to  fill  a  vacancy,  is 
entitled  to  hold  a  seat  until  the  Srnate  is  satisfied  that  a  successor  is  elected  aud  lias 
accepted  the  office.  Provided — That  such  election  and  acceptance  takes  place  during 
the  session  of  the  legislature  held  next  after  the  vacancy  occurs,  and  that  such  acceptance 
ought  not  to  be  inferred  from  the  mere  presentation  to  the  Senate  of  the  credentials  of 
the  newly-elected  senator." 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — I  find  myself  unable  to  vote  for  the  resolution 
of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  DAVIS]  in  favor 
of  which  my  feelings  and  wishes  draw  me.  If  this  had  been  a 
new  question,  I  should  have  concurred  at  once  in  the  construction 

*    Remarks  on  the  duration  of  the  term  of  senators  appointed  by  governors  to  fill 


vacancies. 


SENATORIAL  TERM.  333 

of  the  constitution  given  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  South 
"Carolina,  [Mr.  RHETT]  which,  I  think,  is  the  literal  exposition ;  but 
it  is  too  late,  I  think,  to  review  the  construction  which  has  been 
acquiesced  in  so  'long,  and  which  was  adopted  so  soon  after  the 
establishment  of  the  government.  Then,  adopting  the  construc- 
tion which  has  been  given  in  the  precedents  heretofore  established, 
that  this  seat  was  filled  by  the  person  appointed  by  the  governor 
until  the  vacancy  should  be  filled  at  the  next  session  of  the  legis- 
lature, I  cannot  adopt  the  opinion  that  the  terms  employed  in  the 
constitution  were  designed  to  close  the  term  of  the  person  holding 
office  by  executive  appointment  on  the  first  day  of  the  session,  or 
on  i\\Q  first  hour  of  the  session,  or  on  the  last  hour  of  \kie  previous 
recess  of  the  legislature ;  because  if  we  adopt  a  construction  so 
artificial  and  so  technical,  it  would  follow  that,  unless  the  legis- 
lature should,  on  the  very  first  day,  or  in  the  first  hour,  fill  the 
vacancy,  or  at  least  make  it  the  first  act  of  their  session  to  appoint 
a  senator,  the  legislature  would  never  afterward  have  the  power 
to  fill  the  vacancy.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  construction  given 
to  that  clause  of  the  constitution  by  the  honorable  Chairman  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  [Mr.  BUTLER]  is  sound  and  correct,  to 
wit,  that  the  vacancy  may  be  filled  by  the  legislature  at  any  time 
during  its  session. 

Then,  the  question  arises,  what  constitutes  the  act  of  filling  the 
vacancy  ?  It  strikes  me  that  the  Chair  has  given  a  true  exposition 
of  that  act.  The  legislature  have  a  duty  to  discharge ;  they  per- 
form that  duty  by  appointing  a  person  to  fill  the  vacancy.  They 
are  to  be  presumed  to  have  ascertained  the  competency  or  the 
qualifications  of  the  person  whom  they  have  selected.  They  are 
not  to  be  presumed  to  have  sent  here  a  person  constitutionally 
disqualified  from  accepting  the  trust ;  they  are  not  to  be  presumed 
to  have  selected  an  alien,  one  who  has  not  resided  within  the 
United  States  a  constitutional  length  of  time  ;  they  are  not  to  be 
supposed  to  have  appointed  a  man  under  the  required  age.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  due  to  the  legislature,  and  due  to  the  state, 
to  suppose  that  they  have  ascertained  that  the  person  whom  they 
have  appointed  was  competent  to  discharge  the  trust.  And  I 
think  further  that  it  is  our  duty  to  presume  that  they  have  ascer- 
tained also  the  fact  of  his  acceptance  of  the  trust,  for  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  any  state  would  notify  us  of  the  appointment  of 
the  person  who  had  refused  to  accept,  or  about  whose  acceptance 
VOL.  1—22. 


334  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

they  entertained  any  question.  I  suppose,  therefore,  that  a  per- 
son who  is  appointed  by  a  legislature  is  from  the  day  of  his  ap- 
pointment a  senator  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  I  sup- 
pose that  he  is  to  be  deemed  and  reputed  as  holding  that  office, 
and  entitled  to  all  its  privileges.  The  time  when  he  will  accept 
it,  the  time  when  he  will  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
the  office,  is  a  question  for  himself  alone.  He  may  never  accept 
it ;  but  the  state  has  discharged  its  duty,  and  it  remains  with  the 
state  to  take  care  that  the  vacancy  shall  be  filled.  It  seems  to 
me,  therefore,  that  we  ought  to  pass  over  the  question  of  accept- 
ance of  the  office  ;  for  if  we  wait  for  an  acceptance,  how  shall  we 
define  what  is  to  be  an  act  of  acceptance  of  this  trust  ?  There 
may  be  various  forms  in  which  a  willingness  to  accept  may  be  signi- 
fied. An  exercise  of  the  franking  privilege  would  imply  a  wil- 
lingness to  accept.  If  we  wait  for  an  actual  acceptance,  we  ought 
to  define  what  that  acceptance  shall  be.  After  having  examined 
the  question  with  care,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  we 
ought  to  regard  the  state  as  having  sent  here  a  person  qualified, 
and,  therefore,  that  it  has  filled  the  vacancy  which  existed ;  and  so 
I  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  temporary  tenure  of  the  sena- 
torial office  in  this  case  has  ended,  and  that  the  vacancy  which  it 
continued  has  been  constitutionally  filled.  It  may  be  that  it  will 
prove  to  have  been  imperfectly  filled,  but  the  legislative  appoint- 
ment is  sufficient  until  it  shall  be  found  otherwise. 


MAJ.   GEN.   WINFIELD   SCOTT.* 

FEBRUARY    12,   1861. 

IT  is  precisely  for  the  reason  that  it  is  not  a  departure  from 
what  has  heretofore  obtained  in  this  government,  that  I  am  in 
favor  of  this  resolution,  and  it  is  precisely  for  the  reason  that 
occasion  calls  for  it,  that  I  wish  to  follow  out  the  line  of  safe  and 
well-timed  precedents  from  the  day  when  the  independence  of 
this  country  was  declared  until  now.  It  has  been  the  habit  of 
Congress  to  award  honors  to  soldiers  who  had  distinguished  them- 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  authorizing  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  confer  the 
rank  of  Lieutenant  General  on  Wiiifield  Scott. 


GENERAL  SCOTT.  335 

selves  in  the  service  of  the  country.  The  records  of  Congress 
show  that  its  thanks  were  presented,  sometimes  on  more  than  one 
occasion,  to  each  of  the  distinguished  generals  of  the  revolutionar  j 
war.  The  records  show  that  in  every  war  in  which  we  have  been 
engaged,  the  public  thanks  have  been  awarded  to  soldiers  and 
to  seamen  who  have  distinguished  themselves  in  the  military  and 
naval  service.  The  time  has  come  when  an  acknowledgment  of 
this  kind  is  due  to  the  most  eminent  hero  of  the  late  war  with 
Mexico. 

Senators  here  who  oppose  this  resolution  say  that  they  are  will- 
ing to  adhere  to  the  ancient  course  ;  that  they  are  willing  to  vote 
thanks,  willing  to  vote  medals,  willing  to  vote  swords,  but  that 
they  will  not  adopt  the  measure  of  voting  a  title,  or  the  title  of 
an  office.  Sir,  the  eminent  captain  who  has  been  alluded  to,  has 
achieved  a  distinction  heretofore  unknown,  unattained  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  this  country.  He  carried  the  war  successfully  to 
the  gates  and  to  the  palace  of  Mexico.  He  subdued  the  country 
and  restored  the  relations  of  peace.  Having  achieved  this  great 
triumph  of  the  national  arms,  he  was  suspended  from  his  com' 
mand,  and  the  command  of  the  army  was  devolved  upon  another 
soldier.  He  came  home  from  Mexico  under  the  implied  censure 
of  his  government. 

Mr.  FOOTE,  (interposing.)  Will  the  honorable  senator  allow 
me  to  interrupt  him  for  a  few  minutes,  to  allow  me  to  suggest,  if 
he  is  really  a  friend  to  the  proposition,  that  he  is  pursuing  a  line 
of  remark  which  must,  more  or  less,  impede  the  passage  of  the 
resolution  ? 

Mr.  SEWAKD.  I  thank  the  honorable  senator.  I  trust  that  no 
such  consequence  will  follow.  I  suppose  this  Senate  is  capable  of 
appreciating,  and  willing  to  appreciate,  the  circumstances  which 
distinguish  this  case — which  make  it  a  distinct  one  by  itself. 
Therefore,  because  of  the  peculiar  brilliancy  and  glory  of  the 
achievements,  and  because  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which 
that  officer  became  involved  afterwards,  implying  before  the 
world  some  national  injustice,  it  seems  to  me  now  to  be  eminently 
right  and  just  to  confer,  not  merely  one  of  the  ordinary  tributes 
of  honor,  such  as  a  resolution  of  thanks,  a  medal,  or  a  sword,  to 
this  distinguished  soldier,  but  the  same  thing,  with  some  expres- 
sion of  the  national  sentiment,  corresponding  to  the  peculiar 
circumstances  which  require  its  manifestation.  For  that  reason,  I 


336         DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

find  myself  constrained  to  vote  for  the  passage  of  this  resolution. 
Nor  can  I  see  any  injurious  consequences  that  will  arise  from  it. 
It  is  said,  if  we  create  the  office  now  by  brevet,  it  will  be  here- 
after demanded  of  Congress  to  establish  the  office  in  fact.  I  be- 
lieve the  American  people,  instead  of  degenerating,  are  growing 
wiser  and  better  every  day ;  and  we  may  safely  trust  to  our  suc- 
cessors to  guard  the  public  interests,  public  welfare,  and  public 
fame.  Let  us  do  what  is  just,  and  trust  to  posterity.  They  will 
do  what  they  shall  find  just  and  wise.  It  is  for  these  reasons  I 
shall  vote  for  the  resolution. 

I  disclaim  any  attack  upon  the  late  administration.  I  pass  over 
altogether  the  matter  of  the  complaints  against  General  Scott.  1 
rest  on  the  fact  of  his  suspension  from  command  alone.  The 
Senate  will  perceive  at  once  that  I  am  sincere  in  this  disclaimer, 
when  I  remind  them  that  the  complaints  upon  which  General 
Scott  was  arraigned  were  complaints  that  did  not  arise  here  in  the 
capital,  or  even  in  this  country,  but  complaints  that  came  up  from 
his  own  camp  in  Mexico.  They  were  entertained  ;  and  I  do  not 
say,  I  do  not  intend  to  intimate,  that  they  were  not  necessarily 
and  justly  entertained.  The  distinguished  individual  who  filled 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  under  the  administration  which 
conducted  the  Mexican  war,  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  in 
this  country.  He  is  one  of  my  personal  friends — a  man  for  whom 
I  cherish  a  very  high  regard,  and  to  whom  I  would  be  the  last 
under  any  circumstances  to  impute  unnecessarily  or  wantonly  even 
an  error  of  judgment. 


CHEAP    POSTAGE. 

FEBRUARY    18,   1851. 

Non. — The  question  was  on  Mr.  Seward's  amendment,  viz. : 

"  Strike  out  of  the  first  section  the  words  '  three  cents  when  the  postage  upon  such 
letter  shall  have  been  prepaid,  and  five  cents  when  the  postage  thereon  shall  not  have 
been,'  and  insert  the  words  'two  cents  to  be  in  all  cases'  before  the  word  'prepaid.'  " 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  understand  it  to  be  the  desire  of  the  Com- 
mittees on  the  Post-office,  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  the 
general  desire  of  Congress  itself,  to  give  the  country  the  benefit 
of  a  system  of  cheap  postage.  I  have  proposed  the  amendment 


CHEAP  POSTAGE.  337 

for  the  purpose  of  carrying  that  intention  into  effect.  I  do  not 
believe  the  plan  proposed  by  either  committee  would  accomplish 
the  object  of  cheap  postage,  certainly  not  the  one  proposed  by  the 
committee  of  the  Senate,  which  proposes  five  cents  postage  on 
unpaid  letters,  and  three  cents  on  prepaid  letters.  The  postage 
which  has  been  adopted  in  Great  Britain  is  cheap  postage.  It  is 
a  postage  of  two  cents.  The  honorable  Senator  from  New  Jersey 
very  properly  drew  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  fact  that  the 
amendment  I  proposed  would  have  the  effect  of  giving  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  of  America  a  rate  of  postage  as  low 
as  that  which  is  given  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain.  But  the 
honorable  senator  thought  it  was  impossible,  for  the  reason,  as  he 
said,  that  the  distances  which  the  mails  must  be  transported 
through  this  great  empire  so  far  exceeded  those  within  the  islands 
of  Great  Britain.  But  if  the  honorable  senator  had  recurred  to 
the  fact  of  the  increased  means  of  cheapening  transportation  by 
lines  of  steamboats  and  railroads,  he  would  have  found  that  we 
are  quite  as  able  to  afford  to  the  people  of  this  country  cheap 
postage,  so  far  as  the  expenses  of  transportation  are  concerned,  as 
the  government  of  Great  Britain  is  able  to  afford  a  cheap  postage 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

But  there  is  another  circumstance  which  I  wish  to  notice.  The 
payers  of  postage  in  this  country,  in  proportion  to  the  population, 
exceed  in  number,  in  a  great  degree,  the  payers  of  postage  in 
Great  Britain.  If  the  honorable  senator  will  take  up  the  statistics 
of  at  least  two  of  the  United  Kingdoms,  or  portions  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  he  will  find  that  there  is  an  amazing  proportion  of  the 
population  who  never  transact  any  business  that  requires  commu- 
nication through  the  mail,  and  who,  for  want  of  ability  to  read  or 
write,  are  unable  to  employ  its  facilities.  The  greater  aggregate 
capacity  of  the  American  people  for  correspondence  requires  to 
be  considered  in  connection  with  this  subject.  The  system,  how- 
ever, in  order  to  produce  the  desired  result,  must  be  be  one  which 
will  reduce  the  expenses,  so  as  to  bring  it  within  the  reach  of  the 
great  masses  of  the  people,  and  I  think  a  postage  of  two  cents, 
while  it  will  afford  all  the  revenue  required,  will  bring  it  com- 
pletely within  the  reach,  as  far  as  possible,  of  every  class  of  citi- 
zens. 

But  the  honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  SMITH]  de- 
mands of  me  to  say  where  I  will  find  the  resources  to  supply  the 


338        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

deficiency  which  must  accrue.  He  shows  that  the  department 
has  estimated  the  deficiency  which  will  arise,  if  the  House  bill 
shall  pass,  at  $1,250,000  for  the  first  year.  He  infers  that  a  simi- 
lar deficiency,  or  a  greater  one,  must  occur  if  the  amendment  I 
propose  shall  be  adopted,  and  asks  where  shall  we  find  the  funds 
to  supply  this  deficiency  ?  I  answer  that  we  shall  find  them  in 
the  increase  of  postage  resulting  from  the  increased  correspondence 
of  the  country  consequent  upon  the  reduction  to  so  low  a  rate.  It 
is  quite  immaterial  to  this  government  whether  the  Post-office 
Department  runs  in  debt  this  year  a  million,  or  even  two  millions, 
and  the  next  year  a  lesser  sum,  if  in  the  end  it  shall  be  able  to 
redeem  itself,  and  pay  for  all  deficiencies,  as  was  done  in  the  case 
of  a  former  reduction.  That,  I  think,  will  be  the  operation  of  it. 
I  have  little  faith  in  the  estimates  of  departments  made  up  for 
occasions  like  this,  because  they  are  always  made  to  accommodate 
a  certain  system.  The  estimates  are  made  for  the  system,  and  not 
the  system  for  the  estimates. 

But  there  is  another  source  from  which  the  deficiency  will  be 
supplied,  in  a  large  degree,  and  that  is  a  retrenchment  of  the  ex- 
penses of  the  Post-office  Department.  This  retrenchment  will 
consist,  in  the  first  place,  of  a  reduction  of  the  cost  of  transporting 
the  mails  of  the  United  States.  At  this  day  the  mails  carry  some 
seventy  millions  of  letters  per  annum.  Of  these  seventy  millions 
of  letters,  twenty-two  per  cent,  are  dead  letters,  which  pay  no 
postage  to  the  government.  They  constitute  twenty-two  hun- 
dredths  of  the  expense  of  transportation,  and  the  government 
loses  all  that  sum.  Then  the  government  of  the  United  States  is 
transporting  a  vast  bulk  of  paper  not  at  all  necessary  for  the  pur- 
poses of  correspondence.  Of  six  hundred  letters  opened  at  the 
dead  letter  office,  four  hundred  and  fifty-eight  were  rated  less  than 
one  quarter  of  an  ounce  under  the  present  system,  and  only  one 
hundred  and  forty-two  over  one-fourth  of  an  ounce ;  while  the 
present  system  allows  you  to  include  the  greater  weight  of  half  an 
ounce,  and  to  make  up  the  weight  by  inclosing  in  the  same  en- 
velope letters  from  the  same  or  different  writers  to  the  same  or 
different  correspondents.  Then,  again,  of  six  hundred  letters 
transported  through  the  mails,  only  forty-eight  are  written  on  the 
whole  four  sides  of  a  sheet  of  paper ;  two  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  are  written  on  whole  sheets  with  only  one  page  of  paper,  and 
rarely  the  second,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-eight  cover  only  half 


CHEAP  POSTAGE.  339 

a  sheet ;  forty-eight  are  written  only  on  three  sides,  and  forty- 
seven  are  printed  circulars.  Now,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Post- 
office  Department  is  carrying,  in  sealing-wax,  and  in  envelopes, 
and  in  unwritten  sheets  of  paper,  a  larger  amount  in  weight  than 
the  whole  correspondence  of  the  country.  Under  the  system 
which  I  have  proposed,  that  expense  will  be  retrenched. 

Then  look  at  the  reduction  which  will  be  made  in  the  expense 
of  managing  the  Post-office  Department.  Look  at  the  expense 
which  is  now  incurred.  Two  letters  are  now  delivered  in  the  post- 
office,  to  be  transmitted.  The  first  duty  of  the  post-master  is  to 
see  that  upon  one  is  stamped  five  cents,  and  upon  the  other  ten 
cents,  and  when  a  great  many  letters  are  received  during  the  day, 
of  course  this  is  an  immense  labor.  Then,  when  this  mark  has 
been  placed  upon  the  letters,  there  is  still  another  fact  to  be  ex- 
pressed on  the  letter,  that  is,  to  distinguish  whether  the  letter  is 
paid  or  unpaid.  "When  all  that  is  done,  the  letter  is  ready  for 
transmission.  But  then  commences  a  system  of  accounts.  Each 
letter  is  to  be  registered,  and  the  postage  on  each  letter  to  be  re- 
corded, and  the  discrimination  of  postage  is  to  be  registered  in 
different  columns,  separating  the  paid  from  the  unpaid,  and  those 
which  pay  five  cents  from  those  which  pay  ten.  "When  this  has 
been  entered  in  the  post-master's  books,  he  has  to  make  an  account 
describing  how  many  bundles  he  sends,  with  accurate  details  of 
the  contents  of  each,  and  he  sends  as  many  bills  as  there  are  let- 
ters directed  for  different  destinations.  These  bills  enter  into  all 
the  details  of  the  letters,  and  are  dispatched,  not  to  the  place  of 
destination,  but  to  distributing  post-offices.  "When  they  arrive  at 
the  distributing  offices,  the  envelopes  are  removed,  the  bills  are 
entered,  new  bills  are  made,  and  the  letters  are  again  separated 
into  other  parcels ;  and  the  same  system  of  complicated  accounts 
is  repeated  before  the  letters  are  sent  to  their  destination.  When 
they  arrive  there,  the  bills  are  all  to  be  opened,  their  contents  re- 
corded, and  these  accounts  are  to  be  sent  from  the  receiving  post- 
offices,  and  the  distributing  post-offices,  and  the  delivering  post- 
offices,  to  the  department  at  Washington,  and  there  a  complicated 
system  of  entries  is  to  be  carried  out  in  books,  the  number  of 
which  no  man  can  tell — by  human  hands,  the  number  of  which  is 
legion. 

Sir,  we  shall  reduce  all  these  expenses,  and  render  this  a  simple 
operation.     If  the  amendment  which  I  propose  be  agreed  to,  and 


340  DEBATES  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

the  other  details  which  will  be  necessary,  be  adopted,  when  letters 
are  received,  there  will  be  one  simple  stamp  put  upon  them  indi- 
cating the  payment.  The  stamp  may  not  say  paid.  It  may  be 
any  label  or  sign  which  shall  be  authorized  and  sanctioned  by  the 
General  Post-office.  That  stamp  impressed  on  a  letter,  will  con- 
vey all  the  information  that  is  necessary,  either  for  the  post-office 
to  which  it  is  to  be  sent,  or  for  the  post-master  in  making  up  his 
accounts.  He  has  nothing  to  do,  but  to  add  up  the  number  of 
such  stamps,  and  so  the  whole  proceeding  is  reduced  to  a  simple 
arithmetical  calculation. 

I  have  a  word  more  to  say  on  the  subject  of  cheap  postage, 
which  is,  that  we  shall  find  ourselves  obliged  to  reduce  the  postage 
again,  if  we  adopt  either  system  now  submitted  to  us  by  the  com- 
mittees of  Congress.  The  people  are  entitled  to  cheap  postage. 
They  will  have  it,  because  it  is  their  right.  And  it  will  turn  out 
ultimately,  that  cheap  postage  will  be  the  most  profitable  postage 
to  the  government.  Every  man  can  see  that  if,  instead  of  making 
the  postage,  as  it  now  stands,  at  five  and  ten  cents  at  the  time  of 
the  last  reform,  we  had  adopted  the  postage  which  is  now  pro- 
posed by  either  of  these  committees,  the  Post-office  Department 
would  have  been  richer,  and  the  country  would  have  been  satis- 
fied, and  that  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  now  for  the 
reformation  which  is  proposed  by  the  bill  before  us. 

As  to  the  argument  that  we  may  reduce  the  postage  too  low,  I 
have  nothing  further  to  say  in  addition  to  what  I  have  said,  except 
that  the  argument  which  has  been  adduced  against  reducing  post- 
age to  two  cents,  was  adduced  against  reducing  it  to  five  and  ten 
cents,  but  has  been  overruled  by  experience.  The  Government 
of  the  United  States  is  intrusted  with  the  carriage  of  letters  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  community.  Throughout  nine-tenths 
of  the  United  States,  letters  can  be  carried  by  individuals  cheaper 
than  the  rates  which  are  now  proposed,  if  we  would  leave  the 
business  to  private  capital  and  private  enterprise.  I  think  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  government  to  maintain  this  system,  which  is  con- 
stitutionally enjoined  upon  us.  But  it  is  both  right  and  necessary 
that  the  government  should  not  exercise  a  monopoly  at  a  higher 
rate  than  that  at  which  the  same  service  can  be  performed  by  in- 
dividftals. 

There  is  another  view  of  the  matter  to  which  I  will  advert,  and 
that  is,  that  the  Post-office  Department  is  daily  coming  into  com- 


CHEAP  POSTAGE. 

petition  with  another  public  carrier,  which  carries  information  and 
correspondence  with  ten  thousand  times  greater  dispatch  and  rapid- 
ity than  the  Post-office  Department,  even  with  the  aid  of  steam. 
That  is  the  electric  telegraph.  The  telegraph  is  already  becoming 
a  profitable  system  of  commercial  business.  As  a  system  of  con- 
ducting correspondence,  its  prices  are  becoming  daily  less  and 
less,  and  the  day  is  not  distant  when  the  telegraph  will  encroach 
upon  the  business  of  the  mails,  if  we  keep  the  postage  at  a  higher 
rate  than  that  which  will  be  compensated  for  by  the  reduction  of 
cost  and  time. 

Having  looked  at  this  subject  in  these  various  phases,  I  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  a  uniform  rate  of  postage  of  two  cents 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  United  States,  upon  all  letters,  would 
be  the  most  judicious,  economical,  and  efficient  system.  I  should 
also  propose  that  this  rate  should  be  for  letters  weighing  not  more 
than  one-quarter  of  an  ounce,  instead  of  adopting  the  half-ounce 
standard  proposed  by  the  committee.  I  think  such  a  system  would 
be  found  more  satisfactory  to  the  country,  and  more  useful  in  all 
the  departments  of  life.  Therefore  it  is  that  I  have  submitted 
the  amendment.  To  save  time,  I  would  say  that  if  any  gentleman 
wishes  it,  I  am  willing  to  put  the  postage  on  single  letters  at  two 
and  a  half  cents  prepaid,  and  I  am  willing  to  provide  a  coin  of 
that  value,  which  would  be  a  fractional  part  of  the  federal  cur- 
rency, and  would  enable  us  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  community 
in  that  respect,  while  it  would  make  our  postage  charges  corres- 
pond to  the  federal  currency  which  we  have  in  use. 

I  inadvertently  omitted  to  remark  on  the  objection  of  the  Senator 
from  New  Jersey.  He  seems  to  think  that  we  ought  to  have  a 
credit  system  at  the  post-office  ;  that  there  must  be  a  distinction 
between  prepayment  and  non-payment,  because  there  are  a  class 
of  letters  for  which  it  is  necessary  to  make  such  a  distinction. 
Now,  I  am  unable  to  understand,  and,  of  course,  unable  to  appre- 
ciate the  force  of  that  objection.  Every  man  who  sends  a  letter 
through  the  post-office  writes  because  he  wants  to  write,  because 
he  has  something  to  say  ;  he  writes  upon  his  own  business,  or  he 
writes  upon  the  business  of  somebody  else.  If  he  writes  on  his 
own  business,  he  ought  to  pay  the  postage.  If  he  does  not  desire 
to  serve  his  neighbor  or  his  friend  so  much  as  to  incur  the  expense 
of  two  cents,  he  does  not  want  to  write  to  him  very  much,  and  he 
will  not  write  to  him,  and  probably  it  would  be  as  well  that  he 


342  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

should  not  write  to  him.  But  I  am  told  there  would  be  this  in- 
convenience :  a  person  who  should  send  a  letter  to  another  on  his 
own  business,  and  call  for  a  reply,  would  subject  his  correspondent 
to  the  necessity  of  paying  the  postage.  This  objection  will  be 
obviated  by  the  use  of  post-office  stamps,  when  they  shall  have 
been  brought  into  general  use  in  this  country  as  they  are  in  Eng- 
land. A  person  writing  a  letter  in  such  a  case  would  have  nothing 
to  do  but  to  take  two  stamps,  and  put  one  inside  the  letter,  and 
another  on  the  outside.  The  answer  which  would  be  returned  to 
him  would  have  impressed  upon  it  the  stamp  which  he  enclosed. 
I  am  satisfied  that  we  shall  come  to  this  system  sooner  or  later, 
and  whenever  we  do  come  to  it,  we  shall  find  it  to  be  the  most 
perfect  system. 

[On  the  provisions  in  the  bill  discriminating  between  newspapers  according  to  distances 
carried :] 

I  think  all  these  propositions  go  to  show  the  defect,  the  radical 
defect,  in  principle,  of  the  provision  adopted  by  the  committee  of 
the  Senate ;  to  show  how  much  inferior  it  is  to  the  simple  system 
of  newspaper  postage  proposed  by  the  House  of  Representatives. 
It  is  very  desirable  that  the  action  of  the  government  should  not 
operate  injuriously  to  the  country  press.  But  while  we  are  en- 
deavoring to  secure  that  object,  there  is  a  very  important  one  that 
ought  also  to  be  regarded  with  great  care.  The  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives have  proposed  this  simple  system,  viz  :  that  there  shall 
be  a  charge  on  every  newspaper  weighing  more  than  three  ounces, 
one  cent,  and  for  each  additional  ounce  or  fraction  of  an  ounce, 
one  cent,  no  matter  what  distance,  anywhere  within  the  United 
States.  Then  the  country  press  is  favored  and  protected  by  a 
provision  that  no  postage  shall  be  charged  on  any  newspaper 
mailed  and  delivered  in  the  county  where  printed,  and  within 
thirty  miles  of  the  place  where  printed.  This  is  simple,  and  it  will 
be  satisfactory  ;  much  more  satisfactory  to  the  country  press  than 
any  of  the  propositions  which  have  been  made  here.  !S"ow,  in 
lieu  of  this  system,  which  is  cheap  and  simple,  and  it  seems  to  me 
admirable  in  its  design,  the  committee  of  the  Senate  have  pro- 
posed to  divide  the  distances,  and  to  make  a  tariff  upon  newspapers 
proportional  to  the  distance  they  are  carried.  In  other  words, 
it  is  to  restore  in  the  transportation  of  newspapers  the  very  defect 
which  we  all  agree  should  be  struck  out  in  the  transportation  of 
letters.  Can  any  one  tell  me  what  is  the  reason  why,  if  there  is  a 


CHEAP  POSTAGE.  343 

uniform  charge  for  carrying  letters  all  distances  throughout  the 
United  States,  there  should  be  several  charges  for  carrying  news- 
papers different  distances  within  the  United  States  ?  The  policy 
which  dictates  that  course  is  incomprehensible  to  me.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  there  be  any  policy  at  all  in  it,  it  is  in  favor  of 
discriminating  between  letters,  and  abolishing  or  abandoning  any 
discrimination  between  newspapers  in  regard  to  distance.  Letters 
are  business  transactions  in  which  the  public  have  but  very  little 
interest.  They  are  commercial  transactions,  and  those  who  send 
and  receive  them  do  so  for  gain.  The  public,  as  I  have  said,  have 
very  little  interest  in  the  transmission  of  them.  But  a  newspaper 
is  a  vehicle  of  intelligence,  and  a  vehicle  of  political  interest  which 
ought  to  travel  as  freely  as  possible.  And,  therefore,  it  is  that, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  government  to  the  present  day,  news- 
papers have  never  been  obliged  to  pay  the  government  the  ex- 
pense of  their  transportation,  but  the  postage  they  have  paid  has 
been  very  small,  just  compensating  the  post-masters  for  the  trouble 
of  delivering  them,  leaving  upon  the  government  itself  or  upon 
the  letters  carried  by  the  mail,  the  great  proportion  of  the  burden 
of  the  expense  of  transportation. 

Again,  if  the  ingenuity  of  a  statesman  could  be  taxed  to  dena- 
tionalize this  Union,  he  could  not  provide  a  system  tending  to  it 
more  directly  than  to  break  up  the  distance  within  which  news- 
papers shall  be  carried  at  the  same  rate ;  to  say  that  it  shall  cost 
the  citizens  of  California  $1.25  a  year  to  receive  a  daily  paper 
from  the  seat  of  government,  while  it  shall  cost  a  citizen  of  Balti- 
more only  ten  or  twenty  cents  a  year ;  and  so  again,  to  say  the 
reverse,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  be  denied 
the  information  which  would  be  given  by  newspapers  from  distant 
states,  because  these  newspapers  could  not  bear  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation. This  bill  very  ingeniously  adopts  a  tariff  which  will 
limit  the  circulation  of  the  papers  in  the  eastern  states  to  the 
Atlantic  coast,  and  the  circulation  of  the  papers  published  on  the 
Pacific  coast  to  the  borders  of  the  Pacific  ocean,  and  which  will 
confine  the  papers  of  Alabama  and  South  Carolina  to  their  borders, 
or  nearly  so,  and  the  papers  of  New  Hampshire  and  Maine  to 
their  borders.  What  is  the  object?  These  newspapers  are  the 
political  lungs  of  the  republic.  They  ought  to  have  free  play. 
They  ought  to  play  vigorously,  and  therefore  they  ought  to  be 
kept  in  health.  But,  sir,  the  effect  of  this  whole  system,  in  my 


344  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

opinion,  will  be  to  make  such  discriminations  between  them,  that 
we  shall  be  divided  and  classified  into  states  and  communities 
destitute  of  the  means  of  maintaining  communication  and  sym- 
pathy with  each  other.  I  therefore  hope  none  of  these  amend- 
ments will  prevail,  and  that  we  may  see  the  expediency  of  leaving 
this  subject  in.  the  shape  recommended  to  us  by  the  bill  of  the 
House  of  Representatives. 


REVENUES    OF  CALIFORNIA.* 

FEBRUARY    25,    1851. 

As  to  the  consideration  upon  which  this  money  is  to  be  paid  to 
California,  I  think  there  is  no  ground  to  apprehend  a  mistake, 
whatever  may  be  the  declarations  of  the  representative  of  Cali- 
fornia as  to  that  consideration.  The  bill  appropriates  three  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  from  a  certain  fund,  directing  it  to  be 
applied  to  the  payment  of  the  expenses  of  the  state  of  California 
prior  to  her  admission  into  the  Union.  If  California  expects  this 
money  at  all,  it  is  upon  that  ground ;  and,  in  the  act  of  receiving 
it,  she  acquits  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  that  extent ; 
and  so  you  have  the  voucher  which  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Ohio  desires  ;  you  have  the  voucher  furnished  in  the  language  of 
the  bill — in  the  act  of  acceptance.  The  honorable  senator  wants 
evidence  ;  he  wants  the  claim  submitted  to  a  committee.  Does  it 
make  any  difference  as  to  what  committee  it  is  submitted,  pro- 
vided that  it  passes  the  ordeal  of  some  committee,  and  that  the 
bill  is  reported  to  the  Senate  by  them  ?  And  no  matter  what 
committee  might  have  examined  this  subject,  would  the  Senate 
vote  an  appropriation  any  the  sooner  because  it  had  been  reported 
upon  favorably  by  a  committee  ?  It  is  the  merit  of  the  proposi- 
tion itself  which  must  control  their  decision.  Then  the  only  ques- 
tion is,  whether  California  has  incurred  expenses  equal  to  this 
amount  in  maintaining  a  government  for  herself  previous  to  the 
recognition  of  the  state  as  a  member  of  the  Union.  Upon  this 
subject  I  think  the  honorable  Senator  from  Ohio  can  have  no 

*  Remarks  on  surrendering  to  California  the  customs  collected  there  during  the  Mexi- 
can war. 


IMPROVEMENT  OF  RIVERS  AND  HARBORS.  345 

doubt.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  state  of  California  was 
left  without  a  government,  in  a  state  of  anarchy,  and  that  she 
was  obliged  to  furnish  a  government  for  herself.  She  did  it  at  a 
vast  expense.  In  leaving  her  in  this  condition  so  long — we  volun- 
tarily did  so,  to  be  sure,  but  still  we  committed  a  breach  of  our 
treaty  with  Mexico — a  breach  of  our  treaty  with  California ;  for 
we  were  bound  to  protect  and  defend  her  against  foreign  enemies 
and  against  domestic  dangers.  We  neglected  to  do  so.  She  pro- 
vided the  government  for  herself.  It  cost  her  the  amount  of  at 
least  three  hundred  thousand  dollars.  The  money  which,  if  not 
in  her  possession,  is  the  fund  over  which  she  asserts  the  claim,  is 
now  to  be  placed  in  the  treasury  of  the  United  States.  Is  it  not 
just,  that  out  of  that  sum  which  is  thus  at  our  disposal,  we  shall 
pay  over  to  her  the  amount  she  has  expended  ?  Why  wait  for 
any  more  favorable  time  ?  The  best  time  to  be  just,  is  always  the 
time  when  we  have  the  power,  and  when  the  demand  is  made.  I 
hope,  therefore,  the  amendment  will  be  adopted. 


IMPROVEMENT    OF   RIVERS  AND   HARBORS. 

MARCH    3,    1851 

ALLUSIONS  have  been  made  in  the  progress  of  this  debate  to  two 
places  which  have  been  named  with  favor  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives for  appropriations — Big  Sodus  and  Little  Sodus.  The 
wit  and  ingenuity  and  eloquence  of  the  Senate  have  been  ex- 
hausted upon  these  cases.  Sir,  I  beg  leave,  in  behalf  of  these 
places,  to  say,  that  although  their  names  may  subject  their  import- 
ance to  suspicion,  yet  that  they  are  located  upon  a  large  inland 
sea — that  that  sea  is  one  of  five  which,  connected  with  rivers, 
constitute  a  channel  for  commerce  which  is  unsurpassed  on  this 
continent,  and  unsurpassed  on  any  continent  on  earth — that  they 
are  all  portions  of  the  great  river,  consisting  of  the  lakes  Ontario, 
Erie,  Huron,  Michigan,  and  Superior,  and  the  Niagara,  and  the 
St.  Lawrence,  which  rolls  to  the  ocean  a  tide  of  waters  exceeding 
that  of  even  the  Mississippi  river  itself — and  that,  if  the  senators 
who  have  indulged  themselves  in  mirth  at  the  expense  of  these 
places  had  examined  the  documents  upon  their  tables,  they  would 


346  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

have  found  that  these  two  harbors  are  indispensable  to  the  navi- 
gation upon  that  broad  and  majestic  river — that  they  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  security  of  life  and  safety  of  property — that  they 
are  useful  for  defence,  and  that  one  of  them  constitutes  the  best 
harbor  on  Lake  Ontario,  and  that  both  are  connected  with  the 
commerce  of  the  Erie  canal,  which  bears  into  the  commercial 
emporium  of  this  country  a  larger  volume  of  freight  than  any 
other  channel  of  communication,  unless  it  is  the  Mississippi ;  and 
that  the  commerce  to  which  this  is  tributary  exceeds  all  the 
foreign  commerce  of  the  United  States.  So  much  I  have  felt 
called  upon  to  say  with  respect  to  these  places.  If  there  be  no- 
thing more  objectionable  than  these  appropriations,  there  can  be 
no  senator  on  this  floor,  who,  upon  any  ground  of  constitutional 
construction  adopted  by  the  democratic  party,  or  any  other,  can 
refuse  to  vote  for  the  whole  bill. 

We  who  support  this  bill  believe  we  are  in  the  right ;  they  who 
oppose  it  believe  they  are  right ;  thus  far  the  balance  of  numbers 
has  been  on  our  side.  I  have  been  among  those  who  have  been 
content  with  that  advantage,  and  have  not  opened  my  mouth  from 
the  beginning  of  the  debate  until  now,  and  I  shall  not  open  it 
now  to  criminate  the  motives  or  the  wisdom  of  the  opponents  of 
the  bill,  nor  even  to  defend  the  policy  of  the  bill.  It  is  a  question 
of  opinion,  one  of  those  which  is  devolved  upon  Congress  to  settle 
by  the  Constitution ;  it  can  only  be  settled  by  a  comparison  of 
opinions  and  the  test  of  votes.  "We  have  been  ready  any  moment, 
and  certainly  without  questioning  the  motives,  or  sagacity,  or 
wisdom  of  our  adversaries,  to  come  to  a  vote  without  debate. 
"We  are  now  willing ;  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  satisfied  that  this 
bill  can  pass ;  that  is  not  the  question  we  are  required  to  decide. 
The  simple  question  is  to  let  it  be  determined  whether  the  bill 
can  pass  or  not.  That  is  the  question.  Let  us  have  the  ques 
tion.  "We  are  ready.  The  other  side  have  had  the  advantage  of 
debate  for  two  whole  days.  It  is  said  that  that  is  not  enough. 
Mr.  President,  the  number  of  working  days,  or  secular  days,  is 
only  seventy-eight  in  this  session.  This  bill  has  had  two  full  days 
for  its  consideration,  one-fortieth  part  of  the  whole  time  of  this 
session.  "Who  shall  say  that  when  the  Constitution  limits  this  ses- 
sion to  eighty  working  days,  it  is  unreasonable  to  expect  both  the 
friends  and  the  opponents  of  this  bill  to  come  to  a  vote  after  the 
expiration  of  two  days,  which  days  have  been  so  far  prolonged  as 
to  meet  each  other  in  the  night. 


CONTESTED  SEAT.  347 


CONTESTED    SEAT    OF    SENATOR   YULEE. 

DECEMBER  1,   1852. 

I  THINK  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  principle,  that  a  person  who 
presents  prima  facie  evidence  of  his  election  as  a  senator  must 
be  admitted.  We  all  agree  about  that.  The  question  here  in  this 
case,  however,  is,  whether  there  are  not  two  persons  presenting 
such  evidence  in  support  of  conflicting  claims. 

The  Senator  from  Florida,  [Mr.  MORTON]  in  behalf  of  one  can- 
didate, presents  the  Governor's  certificate  of  election,  or,  what  is 
to  the  same  effect,  a  commission  founded  on  an  election  or  appoint- 
ment by  the  legislature.  Such  evidence  has  been  received  by  the 
Senate  as  prima  facie  from  the  earliest  history  of  the  government, 
and,  therefore,  if  unopposed,  would  be  ample  and  adequate  now. 

But  the  same  senator  presents,  in  behalf  of  another  candidate, 
certified  proceedings  of  the  Legislature  of  Florida,  which,  he 
claims,  show  that  he  was  duly  chosen  or  appointed  by  that  body. 
This  form  of  evidence  has  always  been  accepted  by  the  Senate 
also.  'No  senator  from  the  state  of  New  York  ever  brought  a 
commission  or  certificate  from  the  governor.  All  of  them  have 
brought  here  credentials  given  by  the  legislature,  or  certificates 
by  their  officers,  authenticating  their  action,  and  nothing  more. 

Thus  each  candidate  submits  sufficient  prima  facie  evidence, 
and  they  are  equal  in  position.  This  is  so,  subject  to  one  question. 
The  legislative  certificate,  after  reciting  what  Mr.  YULEE  claims 
to  be  an  election,  shows  that  the  presiding  officer  decided  that 
there  was  no  election,  and  the  legislature  proceeded  to  a  new 
election.  But  that  involves  the  question,  whether  what  had 
already  been  done  constituted  an  election  or  not.  It  is  under- 
stood that  fifty-eight  members  of  the  legislature  attended :  twenty- 


348  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

nine  voted  for  Mr.  YULEE,  and  twenty-nine  cast  Hank  ballots.  If 
these  be  counted  as  adverse  "ballots,  then  Mr.  YTTLEE  was  not 
elected.  If  they  be  counted  as  no  ballots,  or  as  nothing,  then  he 
was  elected.  Now,  I  have  no  judgment  formed  on  that  question. 
The  bias  of  my  mind  is  adverse  to  the  latter  view.  But  it  is  a 
question,  a  real  question,  a  grave  question.  I  do  not  see  how  I 
can  vote  for  the  admission  of  the  candidate  holding  the  governor's 
certificate,  without  deciding  this  question,  which  I  wish  to  hear 
discussed.  In  order  to  do  exact  justice,  therefore,  I  shall  vote  for 
the  motion  of  the  Senator  from  Indiana,  to  refer  to  a  select  com- 
mittee. 

I  do  not  see  that  the  precedent  in  the  case  of  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  SHIELDS]  touches  this  question.  That  senator  pre- 
sented his  credentials,  and  there  was  no  adverse  claimant.  If  I 
recollect  aright,  there  was  alleged  to  be  evidence  that  he  was  not 
qualified  to  accept  the  place  ;  but  there  was  no  question  as  to  his 
having  been  elected  or  appointed  to  it  by  the  legislature  of  the 
state.  There  was  but  one  certificate,  or  one  prima  facie  case, 
made  out.  On  these  considerations,  as  at  present  advised,  I  shall 
vote  for  the  motion  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Indiana. 


ON  THE  EEPEAL  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLATE  LAW. 

FEBRUARY    17,    1851. 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — The  record  of  the  Senate  shows  this  to  be  the 
character  of  its  past  action  on  this  subject.  That  when  a  petition 
relating  to  the  laws  concerning  fugitives  from  service  was  pre- 
sented it  was  referred,  if  its  object  was  to  render  those  laws  more 
stringent  than  they  are  now  adjudicated  to  be.  A  bill,  the  effect 
of  which  is  to  increase  the  rigors  of  the  law,  has  received  a  refer- 
ence. Petitions  for  the  amendment  of  those  laws,  so  as  to  render 
them  less  rigorous,  are  denied  a  reference.  That  is  one  discre- 
pancy. The  record  shows  another,  viz.  :  that  whan  a  petition  is 
submitted  to  the  Senate,  on  the  motion  of  a  Senator  from  Penn- 
sylvania, praying  even  for  an  amelioration  or  a  repeal  of  these 
laws,  it  receives  a  reference.  "When  a  petition  for  precisely  the 


THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW.  349 

same  object  is  presented  by  a  Senator  from  New  York,  it  is  denied 
a  reference. 

I  shall  vote  against  the  reconsideration  of  the  reference  which 
has  been  made,  as  well  because  I  am  in  favor  of  equal  and  exact 
justice  to  both  sides  of  this  question,  as  because  it  is  my  duty  to 
insist  upon  equal  and  exact  justice  from  the  Senate  to  all  its  mem- 
bers. But  I  shall  vote  against  the  reconsideration  for  another 
reason.  For  the  reason  that  I  think  it  most  injudicious  and  most 
unwise  to  deny  a  reference  to  a  petition  of  any  class  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  whether  they  be  such  as  those  who  have 
sent  here  the  petitition  now  presented  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Maine,  consisting  of  what  has  been  called  here  the  elite-  of 
society,  or  Avhether  it  be  sent  here  by  plain,  unassuming  republi- 
can citizens.  I  hold  that  all  are  entitled  to  equal  legislative  respect 
and  consideration,  and  I  never  stop  to  inquire  to  which  of  the  two 
classes  petitioners  belong.  I  have  never  obtruded  upon  the  Senate 
the  character,  title,  or  rank  of  any  person  whose  name  was  an- 
nexed to  a  petition  relating  to  the  present  subject  presented  by 
myself. 

But  there  is  still  another  reason  that  I  am  glad  to  have  an  op- 
portunity to  state  ;  and  that  is,  that  if  the  object  of  the  Senate  be 
to  suppress  agitation,  in  my  poor  judgment  they  take  exactly  the 
wrong  course  to  do  it.  For  years  upon  years,  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  in  one  or  other  branch,  refused,  in  one  form  or 
another,  to  receive  and  consider  petitions  on  the  subject  of  slavery. 
The  effect  was  a  denial  of  the  right  of  petition.  History,  I  think, 
has  settled  the  point,  that  that  denial  of  the  right  of  petition  in- 
creased the  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  instead  of  diminish- 
ing it.  Now,  I  hold  it  to  be  precisely  the  same  in  effect,  whether 
the  Senate  shall  refuse  to  receive  the  petition  and  reject  the  peti- 
tioners from  their  doors,  or  whether  they  shall  go  through  the 
formality  of  receiving  the  petition,  laying  it  upon  the  table,  and 
denying  it  reference  and  consideration.  Whatever  my  opinion, 
then,  of  the  merits  of  petitions  may  be,  I  am  in  favor,  when  they 
are  respectful,  of  giving  them  not  only  a  hearing,  but  a  con- 
sideration. 

But  I  desire  to  state  further  upon  this  subject,  that  I  am  in  favor 
of  receiving  these  petitions  for  the  purpose  of  consideration  and 
legislative  action.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  at  the  last 
session,  attempted  to  do  this  thing 

VOL.  1—23. 


350        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

THE  PRESIDENT.  The  Senator  understands  the  question  before 
the  Senate,  does  he  not  ? 

MR.  SEWARD.  Certainly,  sir,  I  do.  I  am  speaking  of  the  fugi- 
tive slave  bill  of  the  last  session,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  pre- 
sent memorial ;  a  law  which  attempted,  by  very  rigorous  enact- 
ments, to  enforce  upon  the  free  states  of  this  Union  the  domestic 
and  social  economy  of  the  slave  states ;  an  experiment  which,  I 
believe,  has  reacted,  and  will  continue  to  react,  upon  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  itself.  It  is  of  the  same  class  of  legislation  as  that 
which  demanded  in  Great  Britain  a  conformity  in  religion  on  the 
part  of  the  catholic  population  of  Ireland  to  the  protestant  cere- 
monies and  the  religion  of  England.  I  believe  such  experiments 
will  fail,  and  I  believe  so  because  they  are  not  founded  in  true 
political  philosophy,  in  what  constitutes  the  true  political  philoso- 
phy of  this  government,  which  should  treat  the  states  of  this 
Union  as  being  intrusted  with  the  management  of  their  own 
domestic  concerns,  and  should  leave  the  sentiments,  and,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  states  to  the  care  of  the 
.states  themselves,  and,  where  uniformity  cannot  be  compelled, 
should  be  content  without  exacting  entire  harmony. 

Whether  these  petitions  are  now  referred  and  considered,  or 
whether  they  shall  be  allowed  to  accumulate,  as  they  will,  in  my 
humble  judgment,  continue  to  accumulate  from  session  to  session, 
the  result  will  be  that  those  who  natter  themselves  that  they  have 
arrested  agitation  will  find  that  they  have,  by  this  very  course, 
increased  the  agitation  which  was  their  object  to  allay. 

I  may  say  this,  sir,  I  am  sure,  because,  although  I  have  been 
distinguished  on  some  occasions  by  the  epithet  of  agitator,  I  happen 
to  be  at  least  one  of  the  members  of  this  body — how  many  others 
there  are  I  do  not  know — who  never  introduce  this  agitating  sub- 
ject of  slavery  here,  who  have  been  content  with  the  debates 
which  were  had  upon  it,  when  it  came  legitimately  before  us  in 
the  form  of  bills  requiring  debate ;  bills  which,  in  the  process  of 
legislation,  became,  or  might  become  laws.  I  am  one  who  has 
never  spoken  on  the  subject  in  this  house  since  the  bills  referred 
to  became  laws,  and  of  whom  it  cannot  be  said  that  I  have  on  any 
occasion,  by  speech,  writing,  or  otherwise,  addressed  the  people  on 
the  subject  since  those  bills  became  laws.  Sir,  I  claim  then  to  be 
one  of  those  who  have  been  content  to  leave  these  measures  to 
the  scrutiny  of  the  people,  and  to  abide  their  judgment  and  the 


WIDOW  OF  GEX.  WORTH.  351 

test  of  time  and  truth.  I  have  added  no  codicils,  and  have  none 
to  add,  to  vary,  enforce,  or  explain  what  I  had  occasion  to  sav 
during  the  debates  on  these  questions.  Having  thus  no  desire  to 
interfere  with  the  public  investigation  of  these  questions  in  anv 
manner,  but  content  to  leave  them  to  the  examination  of  the 
people  without  interference  on  my  own  part,  I  may  certainlv  be 
allowed  to  express  my  feelings  on  the  present  question.  And  I 
do  therefore  express  my  desire  that  the  right  of  petition,  whatever 
else  we  may  do,  may  be  respected  and  held  sacred  here  ;  and  for 
that  reason  especially,  as  well  as  for  the  others  already  stated.  I 
shall  vote  against  the  reconsideration. 


PENSION  TO  THE  WIDOW  OF  GEN.  WOKTH.* 

DECEMBER    17,    1851. 

IF  it  were  possible  to  frame  a  general  law  embracing  cases 
so  meritorious  as  this,  and  no  others,  I  would  agree  with  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Kentucky.  But  I  despair  of  ever  seeing 
any  such  law ;  and  because  it  is  only  by  special  legislation  that 
we  can  obtain  the  attention  of  Congress  to  a  case  so  peculiarly 
meritorious  as  this,  and  because  other  applications,  less  meritorious 
in  their  character  than  this,  would  often  obtain  an  equal  considera- 
tion under  any  general  law,  I  think  it  is  right,  and  proper,  and 
wise,  to  consider  these  cases  separately.  I  think  it  just  to  single 
out  for  favor  such  as  come  recommended  to  the  consideration  of 
the  government  by  the  magnitude  and  heroism  of  services  ren- 
dered, and  the  destitution  of  families  bereaved. 

Those  cases  which  have  not  merit  will  undoubtedly  fail  by  the 
way.  I  therefore  cordially  support  the  proposition  contained  in 
die  bill.  I  shall  record  my  vote  for  it  now,  and  I  shall  be  equally 
happy  to  record  it  on  its  final  passage. 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  granting  a  pension  to  the  vidow  of  General  Worth,  who  fell  in 
the  war  with  Mexico.  May  T,  1819. 


352  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


COLLINS    STEAMERS. 

X 

MARCH    1,    1852. 

I  DESIRE  to  submit  the  motion  that  when  the  Senate  adjourns  to- 
day, it  adjourn  to  meet  on  "Wednesday.  The  ground  of  the  motion 
js,  that  a  steamship,  which  is  very  interesting  in  its  connection 
with  the  commerce  of  the  country  and  with  questions  which  are 
before  Congress,  is  in  our  port,  and  that  Congress  has  been  in- 
vited, I  understand,  to  visit  it  to-morrow.  I  believe  the  time 
would  be  well  spent,  under  these  circumstances,  and  I  submit  the 
motion. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  of  course  for  every  senator  to  determine 
for  himself  what  susceptibility  he  has  to  improper  influences ; 
but  it  is  not  for  one  senator  to  determine  for  others.  ISTow, 
I  have  no  doubt  that  the  honorable  Senator  from  Arkansas,  and 
that  every  senator  here,  is  capable  of  examining  the  steamship 
Baltic,  and  even  of  receiving  hospitalities  on  board  of  her,  if  such 
are  proffered,  without  at  all  compromitting,  in  his  own  mind,  the 
views  which  he  thinks  ought  to  govern  him  in  regard  to  appro- 
priations from  the  public  treasury.  Such  a  thought  never  occurred 
to  me.  I  have  no  opinion  made  up  in  regard  to  any  claim  upon 
Congress  in  regard  to  appropriations  for  this,  or  any  other  line  of 
steamers  ;  but  I  am  willing  to  be  informed  ;  I  am  willing  to  learn ; 
and  I  do  admit  this  fact  in  regard  to  this  question,  (if  it  be  proper 
to  go  into  the  merits  of  a  question  before  Congress  on  such  a  mo- 
tion as  this),  that  the  country  has  a  right,  at  a  crisis  of  deep  and 
exciting  interest  in  regard  to  the  commerce  of  the  country,  to  de- 
mand that  we  should  determine  the  question  whether  we  shall 
secure  the  commercial  ascendency  of  the  world,  or  shall  suffer  it 
to  pass  from  our  grasp.  The  question  is  one  in  which  the  nation 
has  a  deep  interest.  I  am  desirous,  for  one,  that  those  who  have 


OCEAN  STEAMERS.  353 

called  our  attention  to  this  subject  shall  receive  every  proper  con- 
sideration, and  that  they  should  have  an  opportunity  of  presenting 
their  claims  in  the  most  favorable  manner  possible. 

So  far  as  the  argument  of  my  honorable  friend  from  Pennsyl- 
vania is  concerned,  I  can  gay  to  him  that  I  have  no  such  prefer- 
ence for  one  interest  over  another  as  could  sway  my  judgment  in 
favor  of  a  commercial  to  the  prejudice  of  a  manufacturing  interest ; 
and  that,  of  all  others,  the  measure  which  I  would  support  with 
the  utmost  cordiality,  would  be  a  measure  for  the  protection  and 
relief  of  the  iron  manufacturers.  It  is  indeed  not  possible  for  the 
manufactories  and  furnaces  to  be  removed  here,  and  Congress 
visit  them  here  ;  therefore  it  will  give  me  great  pleasure  to  go 
with  him  to  examine  the  condition  of  those  manufactories  in  his 
state,  as  it  has  always  given  me  great  pleasure  to  see  such  manu- 
factories flourishing  in  my  own. 


STEAMEKS   TO   HAMBUKG. 

MARCH    23,    1852. 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  present  the  petition  of  C.  Hansen,  of  the  city 
of  Brooklyn,  in  the  state  of  New  York,  who  proposes  that,  with 
the  consent  and  patronage  of  Congress,  he  will  establish  a  line  of 
steamers  from  that  city  via  Rotterdam,  in  the  Netherlands,  to 
Gluckstadt,  in  llolstein,  on  the  River  Elbe,  near  Hamburg,  so  as 
to  make  semi-monthly  passages  for  the  transportation  of  mails, 
passengers,  and  freight.  He  offers  to  build  four  steamers,  each  of 
two  thousand  tons.  The  first  two  to  be  completed  in  two  years, 
and  the  two  others  in  three  years.  He  asks  Congress  to  pay  him 
$100,000  per  annum  for  the  first  three  years,  $85,000  for  the  next 
three  years,  and  75,000  for  the  last  four  years,  for  each  vessel  in 
active  service. 

The  first  benefit  which  the  United  States  would  derive,  would 
be  the  establishment  of  semi-monthly  mails,  which  in  time  would 
remunerate  the  government.  The  German  population  already  in 
the  United  States  is  estimated  at  five  millions,  and  it  is  increasing 
at  the  rate  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  a  year.  The  next 


354  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

benefit  to  the  government  would  be  an  increase  of  the  naval  steam 
marine,  since  the  United  States  would  have  the  right  to  take  the 
vessels  at  any  time  at  cost.  A  third  advantage  which  would 
accrue  to  the  country  would  be  the  substitution  of  safe,  whole- 
some, and  speedy  American  steam-vessels  for  the  importation  of 
emigrants,  in  place  of  the  small,  uncomfortable,  and  unhealthy 
sailing  vessels  of  Hamburg,  Rotterdam,  and  Antwerp.  The  new 
line  would  receive  the  trade  of  the  three  great  rivers  of  continen- 
tal Europe ;  the  Elbe,  Weser,  and  the  Rhine.  The  fourth  and 
capital  advantage  which  it  would  secure  would  be  the  direct  car- 
rying trade  and  navigation  with  central  continental  Europe, 
which  is  now  nearly  engrossed  by  foreigners.  The  entire  tonnage, 
inward  and  outward,  in  the  trade  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Hanse  Towns,  in  a  single  year,  belonging  to  foreigners,  is  a  hun- 
dred and  eighty-three  thousand  tons. 

The  entire  tonnage  owned  by  Americans  within  the  same  period, 
was  forty  thousand  tons.  The  value  of  the  freights  received  dur- 
ing the  same  period  by  foreigners,  was  $1,470,000,  while  the  value 
of  the  freights  received  by  the  Americans  was  only  $384,000, 
showing  that  the  trade,  as  now  earned  on,  is  worth  $1,000,000,  all 
of  which,  by  the  adoption  of  this  enterprise,  might  be  secured  for 
ourselves.  I  remark,  once  more,  that  this  great  trade  is  carried 
on  chiefly  by  British  merchants.  Nine-tenths  of  the  American 
cotton  consumed  in  continental  Europe,  is  shipped  first  to  Eng- 
land, and  thence  is  carried  to  the  continent,  thus  subjecting  us  to 
a  large  tribute  in  the  way  of  expenses  •  and  commissions  paid  to 
English  merchants.  The  enterprise  connects  itself,  of  course,  with 
the  present  Bremen  line,  and  these  two  lines  would  enable  us  to 
take  control  of  a  trade  which  at  present  we  only  divide  with 
foreigners  at  great  disadvantage  to  ourselves. 

The  petition  is  sustained  by  documents  and  references  which  I 
commend  to  the  most  favorable  consideration  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads,  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
the  whole  subject. 


LOUIS  KOSSUTH.  355 


LOUIS    KOSSUTH.* 

FEBRUARY  18,  1852. 

I  HAVE  voted  against  the  proposition  to  lay  this  motion  on  the 
table,  and  I  shall  vote  for  the  printing  of  this  communication.  I 
am  influenced  by  considerations  of  respect  and  courtesy  toward 
the  distinguished  personage  from  whom  it  proceeds.  But  I  am 
influenced  more  by  a  consideration  of  the  self-respect  which  I 
think  the  Senate  owes  to  itself.  The  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  at  a  time  interesting  to  the  friends  of  liberty  and  free  gov- 
ernment throughout  the  world,  sent  a  national  ship  to  bring  this 
personage  from  Europe  to  our  shores.  On  his  arrival  here,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  the  name  and  in  behalf  of  the 
American  people,  bade  him  welcome  to  the  capital.  He  came 
here,  and  was  received  by  Congress.  Upon  his  departing,  he  ad- 
dressed to  the  Congress  a  respectful  note  through  the  President  of 
the  United  States  ;  but  formalities  of  etiquette  prevented  the  Pres- 
ident from  sending  it  to  Congress,  and  it  is  now  respectfully  sub- 
mitted by  the  gentleman  himself.  It  seems  to  me  that  a  refusal 
to  receive  it  can  do  no  injury  to  him,  but  may  impair  our  own 
dignity.  It  is  but  courteous,  under  all  the  circumstances,  to  give 
a  respectful  conge  to  our  guest.  Congress  having  received  this 
person  as  a  guest,  it  appears  to  me,  only  acquits  herself  of  an  or- 
dinary act  of  hospitality  by  receiving  this  parting  communication. 
Under  these  circumstances,  without  at  all  referring  to  the  contents 
of  the  paper,  or  to  the  manner  of  the  paper,  I  think  it  is  our  duty 
to  receive  it.  I  see  nothing  objectionable  in  the  communication ; 
but  if  there  was,  courtesy,  under  all  the  circumstances,  would 
seem  to  make  it  our  duty  to  receive  it,  however  objectionable  it 
might  be. 

*  Eemarks  on  printing  the  farewell  letter  of  Louis  Kossuth. 


356  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


DUTIES   OK    GIFTS.* 

MARCH    27,    1852. 

I  FIND  that  this  bill  proposes  nothing  more  than  to  remit  duties 
upon  a  European  donation  to  an  American  charity.  The  articles 
charged  are  the  gift  of  Europeans  for  a  benevolent  and  charitable 
purpose.  I  do  not  think  it  becomes  the  United  States  to  tax  the 
contributions  of  foreigners  to  our  own  charities,  and  therefore  I 
am  free  to  say  that  I  shall  vote  for  this  bill ;  and  under  similar 
circumstances,  I  should  vote  for  any  other  and  similar  bill.  We 
all  recollect  very  well  that  a  few  years  ago  articles  of  great  value 
were  sent  as  a  present  to  the  United  States.  They  became  subject 
to  duties ;  and,  although  these  articles  were  of  great  cost  and  use- 
fulness, they  were  actually  sold  under  the  hammer  at  the  custom- 
house to  pay  the  duties  imposed  upon  them,  and  they  went  into 
the  hands  of  strangers.  I  hope  that  we  shall  always  be  willing  to 
remit  the  duties  upon  such  donations.  Such  charities  are  not  fre- 
quent and  large  enough  to  impoverish  the  treasury. 


THE    EXPEDITION    TO    JAPAN. f 

APRIL    8,   1852. 

I  DO  not  know  that,  after  due  consideration,  I  shall  have  any 
objection  to  the  passage  of  this  resolution.  I  can  only  say,  that, 
so  far  as  my  own  views  are  concerned  now,  I  am  not  prepared  to 
vote  for  it  to-day.  The  subject  is  new  here ;  and  I  think  there  is 
a  possibility  that  some  injury  may  be  done  to  the  public  interest 
by  passing  such  a  resolution  hastily,  while  no  possible  evil  can 

*  Remarks  on  remitting  duties  on  vestments  imported  by  the  Carmelite  Convent  at  Bal- 
timore. 

t  Remarks  on  a  resolution  inquiring  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  the  object  of  the 
naval  expedition  to  Japau. 


ST.  MARIE'S  CANAL.  357 

result  from  letting  it  lie  over  a  few  days — at  least,  for  a  day  or 
two. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan  has  said  very  justly,  that 
he  could  conceive  it  very  proper  that  there  should  be  such  an 
expedition  to  Japan.  There  might  be  many  reasons — I  think  I 
could  imagine  very  many  reasons — which  might  well  exist,  why 
such  an  expedition  might  be  very  proper,  which  reasons  it  might 
be  very  proper  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  under- 
stand, arid  yet  which  reasons  it  might  not  be  very  wise  for  the 
government  of  the  United  States  to  communicate  to  the  world  at 
the  very  moment  of  the  transaction.  "When  I  look  at  the  position 
in  which  we  stand  in  relation  to  the  Pacific  and  the  East,  and 
consider  that  we  have  advanced  our  posts  to  the  coast  of  the 
Pacific  Ocean  ;  that  the  trade  of  the  East  is  in  the  hands  of  Euro- 
pean powers,  who  have  been  for  two  hundred  years  engaged  by 
commercial  treaties,  by  naval  expeditions,  and  by  armed  power, 
in  securing  and  parceling  out  the  vast  trade  of  the  East  among 
themselves;  and  that  one  nation  alone  has  a  monopoly  of  the 
trade  of  Japan,  I  think  that,  instead  of  inquiring  why  an  expedi- 
tion is  now  ordered  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  to 
Japan,  the  question  naturally  arises,  Why  have  not  the  United 
States  before  sent  an  expedition  to  the  East  ?  But,  as  I  said,  I  am 
not  prepared  to  vote  for  the  resolution  to-day.  I  may  be  to-mor- 
row ;  and  1  would  respectfully  suggest  to  the  honorable  mover 
that,  as  I  find  many  others  are  in  the  same  situation  as  myself,  it 
would  be  probably  wise  to  let  the  resolution  lie  over. 


ST.    MAKIE'S    CANAL. 

APRIL    5,    1852. 

I  AM  instructed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  state  of  New  York  to 
submit  certain  joint  resolutions.  I  ask  that  they  may  be  read. 

They  are  in  favor  of  an  appropriation  for  the  construction  of  a 
ship  canal  around  the  Falls  of  the  St.  Ste.  Marie. 

In  submitting  these  resolutions,  I  desire  leave  to  say  that  I  am 
proud  of  the  catholic  spirit  and  patriotism  which  inspired  them  ; 


358  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

that  I  shall  conform  myself  to  the  wishes  of  the  Legislature  of 
New  York  ;  and  that  I  shall  co-operate  with  the  representatives 
of  Michigan,  and  all  others  who  may  take  an  interest  in  the  mat- 
ter, with  alacrity  and  perseverance  in  securing  the  earliest  possible 
achievement  of  so  great  and  truly  national  a  work  as  a  canal 
around  the  Falls  of  St.  Ste.  Marie.  I  move  that  the  resolutions 
he  laid  on  the  table  and  printed 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.* 

APRIL    6,    1  852. 

I  WAS  inclined  at  first  to  look  with  disfavor  upon  the  proposi- 
tion to  amend  this  bill  so  as  to  allow  California  a  second  repre- 
sentative ;  but  upon  examining  the  report  of  the  committee,  my 
mind  has  gone  to  the  other  conclusion.  I  will  state  the  principal 
facts  and  considerations  which  seem  to  me  to  control  the  question. 
That  California  is  entitled,  like  every  other  state  in  the  Union,  to 
representation  in  proportion  to  her  population,  is  what  no  one  will 
deny ;  that  it  is  the  office  and  duty  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  to  ascertain  the  representative  population,  is  equally 
unquestionable.  They  have  undertaken  to  do  so  ;  and  while  that 
duty  was  being  performed,  California  necessarily  was  passive. 
The  census  has  been  taken ;  it  is  a  nominal  compliance  with  the 
requisition  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  a  full  compliance,  if  the 
census  is  radically  wrong,  erroneous,  and  false.  In  that  case  there 
is  no  census  of  California.  To  make  that  point  clear,  I  have  only 
to  suppose  the  case,  that  in  the  reports  of  the  census  there  might 
be  such  an  omission,  by  some  merely  arithmetical  error,  as  to 
reduce  the  population  of  California  from  117,000  to  10,000,  or 
12,000.  Surely,  there  would  then  be  no  census  of  California. 

The  next  consideration,  then,  is,  whether  there  is  such  a  radical 
and  great  error  in  the  census  in  regard  to  California  as  to  vitiate 
the  returns  as  a  census  ?  I  think  that  is  apparent  prima  facie. 
We  are  told  that  the  census  of  California,  with  all  the  corrections 
of  a  majority  of  the  committee,  fix  the  population  of  that  state 

*  Remarks  on  granting  an  additional  member  to  California  on  account  of  an  error  in 
the  census  returns. 


CALIFORNIA.  359 

at  the  sum  of  117,821  souls — men,  women,  and  children,  of  all 
classes  and  conditions.  Well,  I  might  say  that  we,  historically, 
know  that  this  result  cannot  be  true.  The  state  of  California  has 
paid,  in  duties,  into  the  treasury,  during  the  last  year,  $3,000,000. 
There  are  no  117,000  persons  in  the  United  States,  promiscuously 
collected  together,  who  pay  any  such  sum  of  revenue.  The  popu- 
lation of  California  export  five  millions  of  gold  monthly,  that  is, 
sixty  millions  a  year.  There  are  no  one  hundred  and  seventeen 
thousand  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  with  all  the  facilities  to  be 
obtained,  who  can  procure  from  the  earth,  prepare,  exchange,  and 
send  abroad,  sixty  millions  of  bullion  per  annum.  It  is  apparent, 
then,  that  there  is  a  radical  defect  in  the  census,  and  that  it  is 
not  merely  incorrect,  but  that  it  is  so  vicious  that  it  is  no  census 
at  all. 

Now,  what  appears  jwima  facie  is  corroborated  by  testimony 
which  has  been  taken  by  the  committee.  It  derives  strong  sup- 
port from  the  circumstance,  that  when  this  question  became  very 
material  on  the  admission  of  California,  the  population  of  the 
state  was  then  estimated  at  one  hundred  and  seven  thousand. 
Since  that  time,  there  has  been  a  lapse  of  eighteen  months,  I  think 
— nearly  two  years — with  a  continual  increase  of  population,  as 
proved,  not  merely  by  emigration  to  the  state,  but  by  the  con- 
sumption of  merchandise,  by  the  duties  paid,  and  by  the  rapidly 
augmenting  exports  of  productions.  It  is  testified  to  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  state. 

"Well,  then,  it  being  clear  that  we  have  a  vicious  census,  the 
question  is,  whether  we  have  the  materials  by  which  we  can  correct 
it  ?  Upon  that  point  my  mind  has  wavered  most ;  it  is,  whether 
the  evidence  we  have  is  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  say,  that  the 
population  is  now  two  hundred  thousand  in  fact,  instead  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventeen  thousand,  as  it  is  put  by  the  census.  Never- 
theless, it  seems  to  me  we  have  what,  under  all  the  circumstances, 
ought  to  be  satisfactory  to  us  ;  that  is,  the  action  of  the  legislature 
of  California.  That  legislature  had  the  responsibility  of  appor- 
tioning the  representation  in  the  legislature,  and  the  taxes  among 
the  people  of  the  state,  and  among  the  different  counties  and  dis- 
tricts of  the  state ;  that  is  to  say,  they  have  had  to  perform  pre- 
cisely the  same  duty  we  have  had,  for  a  different  object,  for  a 
different  purpose.  They  have  had  to  ascertain  precisely  the  same 
fact,  with  no  motive,  that  we  can  conceive,  to  mislead  them — 


360  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

certainly  without  any  expectation,  on  their  part,  that  their  action 
was  to  be  adopted  by  us,  or  to  conclude  us.  They  have  assumed 
three  hundred  thousand,  as  the  population  of  that  state.  They 
had  an  opportunity  to  know  better  than  we.  They  had  no  motive 
to  mislead  them.  They  did  decide ;  they  decided  under  official 
responsibility.  It  is  true  it  is  their  act,  not  ours.  We  are  not 
concluded  by  it ;  but  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  refuse  to  take  their 
action  as  being  a  fair  guide  for  ourselves,  when  we  ourselves  have 
neglected  to  ascertain  the  fact,  the  responsibility  resting  with  us, 
or,  having  undertaken  to  ascertain  it,  we  have  failed  to  do  so, 
owing  to  circumstances  which  rendered  it  impossible. 

These  considerations  lead  my  mind  to  the  conclusion,  that  it  is 
but  just'and  fair  to  allow  California  the  additional  representative 
which  is  proposed  by  the  amendment  under  consideration. 

There  is  one  other  question — whether  we  can  do  so  consistently 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  Upon  that  point  I 
have  only  this  to  say,  that  the  census  contemplated  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  is  a  census  that  is  not  so  radically 
vicious  as  to  be  no  census.  We  have  taken  a  census  ;  it  is  incor- 
rect ;  it  is  erroneous ;  we  must  cause  it  to  be  corrected  before  it 
will  be  the  census  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
prescribes;  otherwise,  we  shall  be  at  sea  in  a  case  of  greater 
magnitude  hereafter.  It  may  happen  some  time  that  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania,  by  erroneous  returns,  by  erroneous  enumeration,  or 
by  erroneous  addition  of  the  figures  in  the  columns  of  the  census, 
may  be  returned  as  having  a  population  of  only  100,000  or  200,000. 
Certainly  such  a  census  as  that  would  not  bind  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  or  conclude  Pennsylvania.  It  must  be  cor- 
rected somehow ;  it  must  be  corrected  here,  and  nowhere  else. 
We  have,  then,  I  think,  the  power  to  correct  it,  and  it  is  our  duty 
to  collect  the  materials  by  which  to  correct  it.  Having  done  this, 
I  think  we  are  bound  to  allow  to  California  the  benefit  of  correc- 
tion, which  is  an  additional  member  to  that  state. 


THE  PATENT  LAWS.  361 


THE    PATENT   LAWS.* 

JUNE    11,    1852. 

ME.  PRESIDENT, — The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides 
that  Congress  shall  have  power  to  promote  the  progress  of  science, 
and  of  the  useful  arts,  by  securing  to  inventors  and  authors  the 
production  of  their  genius  for  a  limited  term  of  years.  It  is  a  pro- 
vision that  became  necessary  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  reason  that  the  invention  in  which  property  was 
concerned  was  a  matter  of  commerce,  and  commerce  was  neces- 
sarily put  under  the  care  of  the  federal  government,  instead  of 
under  the  government  of  the  states.  It  is  an  anomaly  in  the  Con- 
stitution, because  the  rights  to  private  property  are  secured  to  the 
owners  by  the  several  states  with  this  exception ;  and  I  have  stated 
the  reason  why  this  exception  was  made.  It  was  a  policy  long 
before  adopted  by  the  government  of  that  country  from  which  we 
have  derived  some  of  the  most  valuable  of  our  institutions — the 
Government  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  adopted  in  that  country  in 
the  time  of  James  L,  when  all  monopolies  which  had  been  before 
granted  by  the  crown,  were  revised  and  abolished,  and  the  power 
of  the  crown  to  grant  monopolies  was  thenceforth  restricted  to 
the  case  of  patents  securing  for  a  limited  term  of  years,  to  real 
inventors  and  authors,  the  production  of  their  own  intellectual 
labor. 

The  measures  adopted  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  to 
carry  out  this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  were  the  same  measures 
which  had  been  earlier  adopted  by  the  Parliament  of  Great  Bri- 
tain. They  went  to  the  same  extent,'  and  they  went  no  further ; 
and  being  amended  and  improved  nearly  simultaneously  in  both 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  prevent  the  infringement  of  American  letters  patent  for  inventions 
by  a  fraudulent  manufacture  in  foreign  countries,  and  importation  of  the  manufactured 
products. 


362        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

countries,  they  Lave,  with  some  degree  of  success,  answered  the 
purpose  for  which  they  \vere  intended.  But  a  time  has  come  when 
a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the  existing  remedies  are  inadequate  to 
fulfill  the  constitutional  purposes.  The  manufacturer  of  a  useful 
machine  finds  the  production  of  his  own  patented  machine  on  sale 
by  others,  in  his  own  country,  his  own  state,  his  own  town.  He 
seeks  his  remedy  under  existing  laws.  It  is  ineffectual,  because 
the  existing  remedies  can  only  be  enforced  by  reaching  the  person 
of  the  infringer  who  makes  the  article,  and  the  machine  with 
which  the  article  is  manufactured.  But  the  infringer  is  in  Canada, 
beyond  the  reach  of  legal  process ;  his  machine  is  in  Canada  or 
Nova  Scotia,  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
the  products  are,  nevertheless,  here  on  sale.  Thus  the  American 
inventor,  who  pays  a  great  tax  to  the  government  for  the  privilege 
of  manufacturing  his  own  article,  is  supplanted  in  the  market  by 
the  foreign  manufacturer,  who  uses  the  inventor's  own  machine 
for  the  purpose  without  responsibility  to  him. 

Thus,  sir,  the  remedy  which  is  provided  by  the  Constitution,  and 
secured  by  the  law,  is  inadequate.  The  right  of  property  is, 
nevertheless,  to  be  protected,  or  else  the  constitutional  provision 
fails.  What,  then,  is  to  be  done  ?  Either  you  must  abandon  the 
duty  of  protecting  the  property,  or  you  must  furnish  a  new  and 
better  remedy.  That  is  the  object  of  this  bill ;  and  it  is  proposed 
to  be  accomplished  by  providing  that  the  manufactured  article 
produced  abroad  and  brought  into  the  United  States,  shall  be  for- 
feited to  the  use  of  the  inventor  in  certain  cases.  What  objection 
is  there  to  this  ?  It  is  stated  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Dela- 
ware, [Mr.  BAYAKD]  that  this  bill  proposes  the  introduction  of  a 
new  principle ;  but  I  humbly  submit  that  there  is  no  new  principle 
involved  in  the  matter — nothing  that  has  the  dignity,  nothing  that 
is  worthy  of  the  name  of  a  principle.  The  principle  which  we 
seek  to  establish  is,  that  the  inventor  shall  be  protected  in  his  pro- 
perty, and  the  duty  of  Congress  is  to  see  that  he  is  protected.  The 
remedy  proposed  involves  no  new  principle  whatever.  It  is  merely 
carrying  out  the  principle  already  recognized  and  established. 

But  the  honorable  Senator  from  Delaware  observes,  that  here- 
tofore we  have  never  seized  and  subjected  to  confiscation  the 
manufactured  product,  but  have  left  it  free  and  open  to  commerce, 
and  that  we  therefore  shall  establish  a  new  principle  by  seizing 
the  product  in  this  case.  Sir,  I  repeat  that  this  proceeding  in- 


THE  PATENT  LAWS.  363 

volves  no  new  principle,  for  certainly  the  man  who  uses  the  pro- 
perty of  the  inventor  can  claim  no  protection  on  principle  in  using 
it  to  the  injury  of  his  neighbor,  who  is  its  lawful  owner.  It  is, 
therefore,  only  making  the  existing  remedy  more  stringent.  It 
is  not  departing  from  a  principle  at  all ;  for  the  only  principle  in 
question  is  "  protection  of  property  by  law."  When  this  new  re- 
medy is  proposed,  two  questions  arise  :  first,  whether  it  is  neces- 
sary ;  and  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  property  of  this  kind 
cannot  be  protected,  unless  some  new  remedy  is  given,  nor  can 
the  wit  of  man  devise  any  other  provision  which  will  give  addi- 
tional stringency  to  the  old  remedy. 

What  other  question  remains  about  this  additional  remedy  ? 
Simply  this :  whether  it  is  a  remedy  which  is  capable  of  being 
perverted  to  do  greater  injustice  to  the  innocent  than  it  will  afford 
protection  to  the  patentee.  That,  however,  is  guarded  against  by 
requiring  that  the  person  who  is  to  suffer  this  penalty  shall  be 
proved  to  have  committed  a,  fraud — shall  be  proved  to  have  had 
a  guilty  knowledge  that  the  article  he  was  purchasing  was  the 
property  of  another — the  property  of  an  American  citizen.  Is 
there  anything  new  in  that  ?  No  principle  is  better  established 
than  that  property  stolen  shall  not  be  made  the  property  of  another 
by  purchase.  There  is  no  new  principle  in  saying,  that  though 
the  thief  shall  be  obliged  to  surrender  the  property  stolen  while  it 
remains  in  his  hands,  that  when  he  has  sold  it  in  the  market,  the 
purchaser  shall  not  have  a  title  to  it,  even  though  he  purchased  it 
innocently.  But  in  this  case  we  have  adopted  a  precaution  in 
declaring  that  no  man  shall  be  subject  to  damages  in  consequence 
of  being  in  possession  of  these  products,  unless  it  is  proved  that 
he  knew  that  it  was  the  production  of  a  machine  of  an  American 
citizen  secured  to  him  by  a  patent.  Now,  when  you  bring  this 
knowledge  home  to  an  individual,  he  is  convicted  of  fraud,  and 
you  only  apply  in  this  case  the  old  principle,  that  title  shall  not 
be  diverted  from  its  lawful  owner  by  fraud. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  BAYARD]  seems  to  suppose 
that  the  remedy  is  capable  of  being  abused.  He  cannot  deny  that 
it  is  unquestionable  in  its  nature  and  character.  It  is  not  capable 
of  being  abused,  because  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  person  who 
seeks  to  prevent  another  from  purchasing  these  products  to  give 
him  notice  that  they  are  the  production  of  a  patented  machine  or 
invention.  Neither  can  a  case  of  dispute  arise  between  patentees, 


364        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

because  the  owner  of  a  patent  must  give  notice  to  the  intending 
purchaser,  before  he  buys,  that  certain  goods  manufactured  by 
his  machine,  are  on  their  way  from  a  foreign  country ;  and  he 
must  prohibit  the  purchase ;  if  any  one  buys  after  that,  he  buys 
with  his  eyes  open,  and  he  must  submit  to  the  consequences.  It 
is  not  a  question  of  conflict  of  patents,  but  of  violation  of  a  recog- 
nized patent.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Delaware  says  that  an 
injunction  would  reach  the  case,  and  afford  a  sufficient  protection. 
This  remedy  would  be  defensible  only  on  the  ground  that  the  use 
prohibited  was  unlawful  and  injurious.  But  the  provision  to 
which  he  objects  rests  on  the  same  ground,  to  wit:  that  after  no- 
tice is  given,  the  use  is  unlawful  and  injurious.  If  it  be  right  to 
enjoin  a  merchant  not  to  offer  these  articles  for  sale,  or  to  enjoin 
a  purchaser  from  using  them,  then  it  is  right  to  provide  that, 
without  a  resort  to  the  expensive  litigation  of  an  equity  suit,  the 
person  fraudulently  purchasing  these  articles  shall  not  enjoy  the 
benefit  of  his  fraud.  An  injunction  is  never  defensible,  except  on 
the  ground  that  all  other  remedies  are  inadequate.  There  is,  then, 
no  need  to  resort  to  an  injunction,  because  previous  notice  and 
confiscation  in  defiance  of  it  would  be  not  only  a  more  simple,  but  a 
more  adequate  remedy  also.  To  require  the  inventor  to  sue  out 
an  injunction,  is  to  require  that  he  shall  be  subjected  to  a  great 
expense,  which  could  be  saved  by  giving  a  simple  notice. 

I  had  so  much  to  say  on  the  question  generally. 

The  Senator  from  Arkansas  [Mr.  BORLAND]  objects,  that  if  the 
principle  is  a  sound  one,  it  ought  to  be  extended  so  as  to  apply 
the  law  to  pirated  articles  manufactured  in  other  countries  as  well 
as  in  the  North  American  British  provinces.  My  reply  will  be 
brief.  The  principle  is  the  same,  and  it  would  be  easy,  and  I 
doubt  not  it  would  be  right,  to  extend  it ;  but  it  is  not  now  neces- 
sary to  extend  it.  In  those  foreign  countries  which  are  not  con- 
tiguous to  the  United  States,  there  is  no  such  evil  as  that  of 
infringement  upon  the  rights  of  American  inventors  by  manufac- 
turing articles  with  their  own  patented  machines,  and  sending 
them  here  for  sale.  The  only  cases  which  have  come  to  our 
knowledge,  are  those  in  which  these  articles  are  manufactured  in 
British  North  America,  contiguous  to  the  United  States.  This 
bill,  then,  is  sufficient  for  present  purposes,  sufficient  for  the  pre- 
sent administration  of  justice,  without  extending  it  further.  Sena- 
tors representing  other  portions  of  the  United  States  than  that 


THE  PATENT  LAWS.  365 

where  the  evil  is  suffered,  object  to  its  being  extended  further. 
The  case,  then,  is  just  this.  It  is  necessary  to  give  the  bill  this 
extent,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  extend  it  further.  ~YVe,  who  feel 
the  need  of  it,  are  willing  to  take  it,  without  extending  it  further, 
for  no  other  object  than  to  carry  out  an  abstract  principle. 

The  fact  that  the  infringement  of  American  patents  is  confined 
to  the  contiguous  British  provinces,  seems  to  present  an  anomaly. 
But  that  anomaly  may  be  easily  explained.  All  those  manufac- 
tures which  find  a  provision  of  this  kind  necessary,  are  manufac- 
tures of  wood  or  lumber,  and  timber.  "Wood,  lumber,  and  timber, 
are  not  produced  in  any  foreign  country  so  abundantly  as  to  tempt 
such  infringements,  except  the  British  provinces  contiguous  to  the 
United  States.  They  are  not  produced  so  plentifully  that  their 
production  in  foreign  countries  can  be  made  so  as  to  undersell  the 
patentee  in  our  own  markets.  Take,  for  instance,  the  article  of 
lasts,  a  large  quantity  of  which  are  manufactured  by  patented 
machines.  The  lumber  can  be  obtained  even  more  cheaply  in 
Canada  and  Nova  Scotia  than  here,  directly  across  rivers,  which 
are  traversed  by  ferries  at  all  hours  of  the  day  and  night ;  and  it 
will  be  seen  at  once,  that  trade  in  the  article,  if  allowed,  would 
become  indiscriminate,  unless  there  is  such  a  remedy  as  this  bill 
contemplates.  But  there  are  no  last-makers  in  England,  or  France, 
or  Russia,  sending  their  lasts  here,  manufactured  by  our  machines, 
or  otherwise. 

On  the  contrary,  so  cheap  are  the  products  of  our  machines  for 
working  in  wood,  compared  with  those  in  Europe,  that  without 
any  patent  whatever,  we  do  sell  a  vast  amount  of  articles  of  this 
kind,  especially  of  clocks,  all  over  the  continent  of  Europe,  al- 
though we  have  no  bounty  there,  and  must  pay  a  duty  upon  them 
when  introduced  there.  It  is  seen,  then,  I  hope,  that  this  bill  is 
right  in  itself ;  that  it  is  necessary  ;  that  nothing  less  will  be  ade- 
quate ;  and  that  more  than  this  bill  proposes  is  unnecessary,  and 
that  a  constitutional  obligation  upon  Congress  requires  that  it 
should  be  passed. 

I  will  say  one  word  in  reply  to  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator 
from  Virginia,  [Mr.  HUNTER]  and  shall  postpone  any  further  re- 
marks until  after  the  engrossing  of  the  bill. 

It  seems  to  me  necessary  now  to  say,  in  reply  to  so  much  of  the 
argument  of  the  senator  as  supposes  that  there  is  a  remedy  for 
this  difficulty  by  going  into  Canada,  and  taking  out  a  patent  there, 

VOL.  1—24.  " 


366  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

that  the  cases  of  injury  which  have  brought  this  bill  before  the 
Senate,  arise  in  respect  to  patents  which  have  been  already  re- 
newed and  extended — very  meritorious  patents,  about  which  there 
has  been  no  contention.  I  speak  particularly  of  a  patent  for 
turning  irregular  forms  of  wood,  for  which  it  is  impossible  to  get 
a  patent  in  England,  and  to  which,  therefore,  the  argument  of  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  will  not  apply. 

In  regard  to  the  question  raised  by  that  honorable  senator,  that 
we  are  establishing  a  new  principle,  I  submit,  for  his  considera- 
tion, that  there  is  really  no  such  embarrassment  in  this  case.  We 
have  laws  which  enable  us  to  protect  the  rights  of  inventors,  by 
arresting  the  fraudulent  manufacturer  of  the  patented  articles. 
That  is  the  remedy  under  our  present  system.  "We  must  reach 
the  person  of  the  infringer,  and  we  must  be  able  to  reach  his  ma- 
chine, and  for  that  purpose  he  must  be  a  resident  of  the  United 
States.  Therefore,  without  seizing  on  the  production  of  the  pa- 
tented article,  we  can,  in  such  cases,  punish  infringement,  prevent 
piracy,  and  protect  the  rights  of  inventors.  But  where  a  person, 
resident  in  this  country,  is  in  the  possession  of  a  patent,  and 
another  person,  wishing  to  evade  that  patent,  goes  into  the  adja- 
cent province  of  Canada,  and  there  erects  his  machine,  he  is 
beyond  our  reach,  and  is  subject  to  no  law  that  we  can  enact.  We 
cannot  visit  him  with  the  punishments  authorized  by  our  laws ; 
we  cannot  reach  him,  and  seize  his  machine,  and  break  it  up,  as 
we  could  do  if  he  were  a  resident  of  the  United  States.  There  is 
no  remedy,  then,  but  to  prevent  the  importation  of  articles  manu- 
factured abroad  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  the  constitutional 
policy  of  the  United  States,  which  is  the  protection  of  manufac- 
turers in  their  property. 


WAR  STEAMERS.  367 


WAR   STEAMERS   FOR  HAKBOK   DEFENCE. 

JUNE    15,    1852. 

INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. — On  the  motion  of  Mr.  SEWARD,  the  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  joint  resolution  authorizing  the  completion 
of  a  war  steamer  for  harbor  defence ;  which  requires  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  have 
completed,  without  unnecessary  delay,  the  war  steamer  contracted  for  with  Robert  L. 
Stevens,  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  April  14th,  1842. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT, — I  hope  this  resolution  may  pass.  The  contract 
with  Mr.  Stevens  was  made,  not  upon  an  assurance  and  a  certainty 
that  such  a  steamer  as  this  could  be  built,  but  by  way  of  experi- 
ment to  ascertain  whether  it  was  possible  ;  and  to  secure  such  a 
result,  if  it  was  possible.  It  was  wisely  made,  if  the  character 
of  Mr.  Stevens  for  intelligence,  sagacity,  and  science,  gave  a  gua- 
ranty that  he  would  ascertain  this  important  result.  ~No  one  can 
question  that  the  character  of  Mr.  Stevens  afforded  that  guaranty. 
A  more  accomplished,  scientific,  mechanical  engineer  does  not 
exist  in  this  or  any  other  country.  The  country  is  filled  already 
with  trophies  of  the  success  of  his  experiments. 

It  was  wise,  then,  to  obtain  this  measure  of  defence  through 
this  agency.  And  now  I  ask,  whether  anything  has  occurred  to 
shake  the  confidence  of  the  public  in  the  success  of  the  experi- 
ment ?  Nothing  has  occurred ;  the  character  of  Mr.  Stevens 
remains  as  unquestioned  as  before  ;  and  he  has  prosecuted  the 
experiment  with  diligence,  with  the  most  lavish  expenditure  of 
his  own  private  means ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  with  caution 
marking  every  step — going  across  to  England  more  than  once  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  materials  there,  which  could  not  be 
obtained  here. 

This  would  seem,  then,  to  be  a  question  foreclosed,  if  the  action 
of  Congress  ever  forecloses  debate.  Congress  went  into  this  matter 
for  the  purpose  of  experiment.  They  went  into  it  wisely.  Having 


368  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

no  substantial  cause  to  recede,  they -are  bound  in  good  faith  to  him, 
and  bound  by  considerations  of  the  original  wisdom  of  the  proceed- 
ing, to  prosecute  it  to  an  end.  The  question  whether  he  submitted 
his  plans  to  the  department,  is  a  question  that  has  passed.  No 
material  inconvenience  or  injury  has  resulted  from  it.  If  he  did 
not  at  that  time  submit  his  plans,  they  are  now  before  the  depart- 
ment. But  we  are  told  that  Mr.  Stevens  cannot  succeed  in  pro- 
ducing such  a  vessel  as  was  contemplated.  Sir,  I  remember  that 
all  the  scientific  men  in  England — and  there  are  as  scientific  men 
there  as  anywhere — maintained  that  it  was  impossible  to  navigate 
the  ocean  between  the  two  continents  with  steam.  That  this  was 
settled  as  a  principle  of  science  ;  established,  it  was  supposed,  by 
the  savons  of  Europe,  the  very  day  when  the  Sirius  and  Great 
Britain  arrived  simultaneously  from  England  in  the  harbor  of 
New  York.  There  is  no  way  of  knowing  what  cannot  be  done  in 
science,  but  by  trying. 

Sir,  I  remember  to  have  met  a  gentleman  who  told  me  that,  in 
the  year  1804,  1805,  or  1806,  when  he  was  visiting  Paris,  at  a 
dinner  party  at  the  American  minister's,  there  was  a  young  man 
exceedingly  loquacious  and  offensive,  because  he  engrossed  too 
much  of  the  conversation ;  and  he  confined  his  remarks  to  a 
single  topic,  and  that  was  the  subject  of  navigation  by  steam 
power  alone.  And  he  said  to  incredulous  ears  all  around  him, 
that  if  he  could  only  get  the  sum  of  $10,000,  he  would,  in  two 
years  from  that  date,  have  a  steamboat  upon  the  Hudson  river, 
which  would  navigate  from  the  commercial  to  the  political  cap- 
ital of  the  state  of  New  York,  at  the  rate  of  four  miles  an  hour. 
Tie  was  voted  an  enthusiast.  That  young  man  was  Robert  Fulton. 
The  government  did  not  furnish  the  means,  but  he  obtained  them 
from  liberal  patrons,  and  completed  his  experiments,  and  we  have 
the  vast  result. 

I  remember  also,  sir,  that  when  there  was  a  project  to  establish 
communication  by  the  use  of  the  electric  fluid,  but  a  few  years 
ago,  it  was  maintained  that  that  was  impossible.  Congress  appro- 
priated the  money  to  be  applied,  in  the  hands  of  a  scientific  man, 
in  whom  the  nation  had  confidence,  that,  if  a  desirable  result 
could  be  obtained,  he  would  produce  it — and  they  gave  it  not 
grudgingly — to  make  the  experiment  between  this  city  and  Balti- 
more. In  spite  of  incredulity  here  and  elsewhere,  the  experiment 
was  successfully  carried  through. 


WAR  STEAMERS.  369 

It  would  have  been  just  as  wise  to  have  arrested  Fulton  in  his 
first  experiments,  or  to  have  given  over  the  steam  navigation  on 
the  Atlantic  without  an  experiment,  or  to  have  arrested  the  pro- 
gress of  Morse  in  producing  his  invention,  as  it  would  be  for  you, 
in  regard  to  Mr.  Stevens's  invention,  to  stop  at  the  point  where 
you  are. 

Mr.  President,  on  the  general  question  it  seems  to  me  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  I  remember,  a  few  years  ago,  when  the  British 
government  demanded  of  the  American  government  the  surren- 
der of  a  subject  of  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  wrho  was  arrested 
on  a  charge  of  crime  in  the  state  of  New  York,  and  intimations 
were  made  by  the  public  newspapers  and  elsewhere,  that,  unless 
the  demand  was  complied  with  within  a  given  time,  the  port  of 
'New  York  would  be  bombarded  by  a  British  fleet ;  and  British 
vessels  were  said  to  be  on  their  way  and  hovering  on  our  coast 
for  that  purpose.  I  remember  the  consternation  and  panic  which 
were  produced,  not  only  in  that  great  commercial  capital,  but 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  that  men  were  willing,  without 
inquiring  into  the  justice  and  merits  of  the  question,  or  waiting 
to  deliberate  or  debate  upon  it,  to  save  the  commercial  capital  of 
the  country  by  surrendering  to  the  demand  of  that  foreign  power 
at  once — to  humble  the  nation  at  the  feet  of  the  mistress  of  the 
seas.  That  is  precisely  the  condition  in  which  we  are  to-day,  and 
in  which  we  shall  be  until  we  adopt  some  policy  of  defence  for 
our  great  commercial  towns ;  and  I  know  no  policy  that  can  be 
adopted  so  wisely  as  to  furnish  to  judicious,  qualified,  and  scien- 
tific engineers,  the  funds  necessary  to  produce,  if  possible,  a  float- 
ing defence,  to  be  used  in  aid  and  in  co-operation  with  the 
stationary  defences  of  American  ports.  I  hope,  then,  that  the 
resolution  may  pass. 


370  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 


CATLIN'S    INDIAN    GALLEKY.* 

JUNE    25,    1852. 

ME.  CATLIN  is  an  American  citizen,  who  was  born  and  educated 
in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  'Gifted  with  genius  for  the  arts,  and 
imbued  with  a  spirit  of  enthusiastic  devotion  to  the  fame  of  his 
country,  in  early  life,  without  either  public  or  private  patronage, 
he  repaired  to  the  haunts  of  the  savages  in  the  recesses  of  the  con- 
tinent, and  winning  their  kindness  and  confidence,  while  as  yet 
the  white  man  was  almost  unknown  to  them,  he  visited,  in  the 
period  of  eight  years,  forty-eight  tribes,  and  in  the  end,  brought 
away  this  very  large  collection  of  paintings,  which  exhibits  with 
great  felicity,  complete  views  of  the  most  interesting  forest  and 
prairie  scenes  of  the  continent,  with  portraits  of  the  various  cha- 
racters found  there,  and  ample  illustrations  of  the  political,  social, 
and  religious  customs,  ceremonies,  and  costumes  of  the  race — a 
collection  which  gratifies  an  enlightened  curiosity  now,  and  will, 
with  the  progress  of  time,  acquire  an  inestimable  value  as  an  aid 
to  the  philosopher  and  historian  in  the  study  of  human  nature  in 
a  peculiar  stage  of  development,  never  before  sufficiently  marked. 
Having  completed  his  collection,  Mr.  Catlin,  in  1837,  exhibited  it 
in  this  city,  and  in  pursuance  of  his  original  purpose,  offered  it  to 
Congress,  who  manifestly  thought  favorably  of  that  proposition  ; 
but  delays  occurred,  and  Mr.  Catlin,  without  abandoning  his  wish 
for  such  an  eventual  disposition,  took  them  to  Europe,  as  well  to 
support  himself  by  exhibiting  it,  as  to  use  it  in  preparing  a  great 
work,  since  completed,  on  the  history,  customs,  and  manners  of 
the  North  American  Indians.  The  collection  excited  much  in- 
terest and  admiration  in  Europe,  and  obtained  for  Mr.  Catlin 
many  marks  of  respect  and  consideration  from  the  friends  of 

*  Bemarks  on  the' purchase  of  Catlin's  Indian  Collection. 


CATLIN'S  INDIAN  GALLERY.  371 

science  and  the  arts  in  foreign  courts.  While  at  Paris  the  Ameri- 
can artists,  then  residing  there,  among  whom  were  several  whose 
fame  has  become  a  part  of  our  national  glory,  addressed  a  memo- 
rial to  Congress,  praying  them  to  adopt  measures  to  restore  the 
collection  to  our  country,  and  to  place  it  among  her  records.  In 
support  of  this  proposition,  they  remarked  that  the  collection  was 
not  only  interesting  to  our  countrymen  generally,  but  absolutely 
necessary  to  American  artists ;  that  the  Italian  who  wished  to  por- 
tray the  history  of  Rome  found  reminiscences  of  her  sons  in  the 
Vatican;  that  the  French  artist  could  study  the  Gauls  in  the 
Museum  of  the  Louvre  ;  and  that  the  Tower  of  London  was  rich 
in  the  armor  and  weapons  of  the  Saxon  race ;  and  that,  without 
such  a  collection,  few  of  the  glorious  pages  of  our  early  history 
could  be  illustrated.  The  same  view  of  the  subject  was  taken  by 
the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Library  of  Congress,  to  whom  that 
interesting  memorial  was  referred.  More  recently,  a  communica- 
tion has  been  submitted  to  Congress,  by  several  eminent  members 
of  the  Historical  Society  of  New  York,  recommending  the  pur- 
chase of  the  collection  on  substantially  the  same  grounds.  I  con- 
cur in  these  opinions,  and  I  add  that,  admitting  the  merit  of  the 
collection,  which  is  conclusively  established  by  documents  now 
before  the  Senate,  and  admitting  also  the  ability  of  the  govern- 
ment to  secure  it,  which  cannot  reasonably  be  denied,  no  argument 
can  be  brought  against  the  purchase  of  it  on  just  and  reasonable 
terms,  which  would  not  equally  weigh  against  every  appropriation 
by  Congress  for  the  acquisition  and  preservation  of  the  materials 
of  science  and  of  history ;  against  the  deposit  of  cotemporaneous 
works  in  the  library  of  Congress ;  the  illustration  of  grand  and 
interesting  events  in  the  national  progress  on  canvas  and  in 
marble,  W7hich  grace  the  chambers,  walls,  and  gardens  of  the 
capitol ;  and,  indeed,  against  all  the  treasures  of  science  and  art 
already  gathered  into  the  archives  of  the  country.  Copiousness 
is  essential  to  the  value  of  the  instructions  of  history,  and  if  we 
should  attempt  a  discrimination  between  the  various  materials 
gathered  for  such  a  use,  surely  the  last  this  great  and  generous 
people  should  exclude  would  be  those ,  that  supply  us  scanty  in- 
formation concerning  the  heroic  yet  simple  race  whom,  with  a 
strong  arm  and  little  tenderness,  we  are  expelling,  and  perhaps 
unavoidably  exterminating,  throughout  the  broad  domain  of  which 
they  once  were  undisturbed  and  unquestioned  occupants. 


372        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

To  reject  the  cultivation  and  perfection  of  the  arts  altogether, 
would  be  to  concede  that  in  all  that  makes  us  differ  from  the 
savage  tribes,  we  are  neither  better  nor  wiser  than  they.  In  all 
countries,  and  especially  in  a  republic,  the  great  responsibility  of 
those  who  are  charged  with  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  society, 
is  the  education  of  the  people  in  valor,  wisdom,  and  virtue.  There 
is  no  point  at  which  such  education  can  be  wisely  arrested ;  since 
the  more  complete  and  universal  education  becomes,  the  more 
fully  the  democratic  principle  is  developed,  and  the  more  safely 
and  easily  is  free  government  sustained.  While  the  responsibilities 
of  education,  in  a  strict  sense,  rest  upon  the  several  states,  the 
right  and  duty  of  the  United  States  to  promote  that  great  object 
incidentally,  in  the  administration  of  the  national  domain,  and  in 
its  exclusive  legislation  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  have  been 
fully  acknowledged  and  practically  exercised  and  performed  since 
the  foundation  of  the  government.  I  invoke  the  performance-of 
a  similar  duty  now.  "Why  should  not  the  capital  of  the  United 
States  take  on  the  classic  dignity  and  the  refinement  worthy  of 
the  seat  of  government  of  a  great  people  ?  How  shall  we  better 
strengthen  the  bonds  of  our  Union  than  by  rendering  the  capital 
an  object  of  pride  and  interest  to  the  people  of  every  state?  How 
shall  we  impress  mankind  with  the  excellence  of  the  republican 
system  more  cheaply  and  more  effectually  than  by  exhibiting 
to  them  the  archives  of  art  and  science  in  this  chosen  seat  of  re- 
publican authority  ? 

A  letter  recently  received  from  Mr.  Catlin  brings  the  painful 
intelligence  that  he  has  sunk  under  the  pressure  of  debts,  and  is 
now  imprisoned,  while  his  collection  is  advertised  to  be  sold  on 
execution  in  London.  Under  these  circumstances,  he  reduces 
his  price  to  the  government  from  $65,000,  its  former  estimated 
Worth,  to  $25,000.  While  these  unhappy  circumstances  furnish 
no  sufficient  ground  for  interposition  by  the  government  for  his 
relief,  they  may,  nevertheless,  be  allowed  to  stimulate  us  to  the 
action  recommended,  if,  as  has  been  argued,  it  is  wise  and  proper 
in  itself.  It  is  obvious  that  without  a  careful  inspection  of  the  col- 
lection, so  as  to  ascertain  its  present  condition  and  value,  it  would 
be  unwise  to  name  a  definite  price.  The  committee  have  there- 
fore recommended  wisely  that  the  subject  be  intrusted  to  an  agent, 
to  be  appointed  by  the  President,  with  a  limited  discretion. 


THE  FISHERIES.  373 


THE    FISHERIES. 

JULY    23,    1852. 

I  SHALL  vote  with  very  great  pleasure  for  the  resolution  of  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Kelations,  [Mr.  MASON.] 
I  have  read  it  with  some  care ;  and  I  perceive  that  it  is  limited 
to  two  objects — in  the  first  place,  a  call  for  information  in  the 
possession  of  the  executive  branch  of  the  government ;  and  in  the 
next  place,  for  information  as  to  whether  that  branch  of  the  gov- 
ernment has  resorted  to  any  measures  for  the  purpose  of  exhibit- 
ing, on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  an  armed  force  in  the  waters 
which  are  the  scene  of  the  difficulties  which  have  arisen.  I  see 
nothing  improper  in  the  calls  made.  While  all  of  us  feel  the  im- 
portance of  the  fisheries,  on  the  north-eastern  shores  of  the  United 
States,  it  must  also  be  admitted  that  there  is  no  state — neither 
Maine,  for  which  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce 
[Mr.  HAMLIN]  has  spoken ;  nor  Massachusetts,  for  which  another 
senator  [Mr.  DAVIS]  has  given  expression — that  is  more  interested 
than  my  own  in  this  question.  It  is  very  clear  that  there  can  be 
no  collision  of  the  forces,  or  of  any  portion  of  the  forces,  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  on  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  or  in  the 
waters  adjacent,  which  will  not  necessarily  involve  this  whole 
country  in  the  blaze  of  war ;  and  if  that  event  should  arrive,  there 
is  no  part  of  the  Union  that  will  be  exempt  from  its  calamities, 
and  certainly  that  state  which  I,  in  part,  represent,  will  be  one  of 
the  first  to  be  visited  with  its  responsibilities  and  its  disasters. 

While,  therefore,  I  see,  and  admit,  the  propriety  of  calling  for 
this  information ;  if  it  be  true,  as  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that 
it  is,  that  the  British  government  has  exhibited  a  force  preliminary 
to  negotiation,  and  while  I  think  that  the  suggestion  is  a  pertinent 
one  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  should  be  prepared 


374  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

with  a  corresponding  force  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  an  atti- 
tude equally  commanding  and  advantageous  for  negotiation ; 
while  I  think  that  this  resolution,  in  itself,  is  not  only  harmless, 
but  proper,  I  must  deprecate,  with  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts, [Mr.  DAVIS]  if  1  understood  the  spirit  of  his  remarks  cor- 
rectly, any  undue  excitement  on  this  subject. 

It  is  a  great  and  important  question,  and  whether  it  is  to  be 
terminated,  as  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  be  terminated,  peacefully, 
or  is  to  be  terminated  by  a  sterner  arbitrament,  it  is  very  clear 
that  it  will  be  conducted  most  wisely  and  most  safely  on  our  part, 
if  we  keep  cool  during  the  present  stage  of  the  controversy ;  and 
I,  for  one,  propose  to  keep  myself  in  that  temperament.  Xor  do 
I  think  that  there  is  any  thing  extraordinary  in  newspaper  ac- 
counts of  the  negotiation  on  this  subject.  We  all  know  that  the 
honorable  and  distinguished  Secretary  of  State  is  accustomed,  pre- 
cisely at  this  season  of  the  year,  to  resort  to  his  native  climate  as 
a  protection  against  that  of  this  latitude,  which  is  injurious  to  his 
health,  and  that  he  had  resorted  there  before  any  of  these  ques- 
tions had  arisen.  He  is  there  recruiting  his  energies,  and,  there- 
fore, I  repeat  that  in  the  very  moment  we  are  inquiring  whether 
a  force  has  been  sent,  it  is  discourteous  to  the  President,  as  it  is 
unwise  and  imprudent,  to  bestow  censure  for  not  having  done  that 
which  we  imply  that  we  suppose  he  may  have  done,  or  will  yet 
do  in  good  season. 

On  the  whole,  I  see  no  necessity  for  any  excitement  on  this 
subject.  A  war  with  Great  Britain  will  be  no  trifling  affair,  and, 
as  I  said  before,  we  shall  go  into  either  negotiation  or  war,  and 
come  out  of  it  more  safely,  if  we  are  to  go  into  it,  keeping  cool 
and  taking  our  time,  and  taking  every  advantage  of  circumstances 
which  may  arise.  I  need  not  say  that  when  such  an  exigency 
comes,  I  shall  be  as  well  prepared  to  meet  it,  its  responsibilities 
and  its  consequences,  and  to  stand  as  long  and  firmly  by  the  na- 
tional rights  and  dignity  as  any  one  here  or  elsewhere. 

This  is  either  a  grave  question,  or  it  is  not.  Tf  it  is  a  trivial  one, 
time  is  only  wasted  in  discussing  it.  If  it  is  a  serious  one,  it  is 
worth  while  to  know  what  we  are  disputing  about.  Kow,  we 
certainly  are  not  disputing  about  this  call  for  information,  for  we 
are  unanimously  in  favor  of  that,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  ascer- 
tain from  the  sentiments  expressed  by  gentlemen  on  this  floor. 
Then  the  only  question  about  which  there  is  any  dispute  is. 


THE  FISHERIES.  375 

whether  any  fault  should  be  attached  to  the  executive  branch  of 
the  government,  thus  far?  I  submit  to  senators,  that  if  there  be 
a  prospect,  however  dim  and  distant,  of  a  war  with  Great  Britain, 
it  is  an  important  and  serious  question,  and  one  of  the  best  modes 
for  losing  the  advantages  in  a  negotiation,  or  for  securing  our 
rights  or  for  preventing  that  war,  is  to  show  the  British  nation  at 
the  outset  that  we  are  not  agreed  among  ourselves ;  that  we  are 
taking  to  task  the  executive  department  of  our  government,  for 
want  of  sufficient  promptness  in  securing  our  interests.  But  let 
that  pass. 

What  evidence  is  there  that  the  executive  has  failed,  or  that  the 
Secretary  of  State  has  failed,  or  is  about  to  falter  in  securing  the 
national  rights  ?  Why,  our  first  knowledge  of  this  question  comes 
from  a  publication  of  his  own,  announcing  it  to  the  country,  and 
declaring  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  right  of  the  question  was  on  our 
own  side  ;  and  that  communication  was  made  before  he  had  time 
to  examine  the  facts,  without  the  evidence  since  disclosed,  show- 
ing that  the  position  assumed  by  the  British  government  is  wrong, 
and  that  the  position  assumed  by  the  fishermen  is  right.  The 
Secretary  of  State  is  already  committed.  What,  then,  is  wrong? 
Gentlemen  say  that  he  is  proceeding  to  negotiate  while  there  is  an 
armed  force  collected  by  the  opposite  party,  to  compel  us,  if  we 
will  negotiate,  to  negotiate  under  threats  or  menaces.  Sir,  it  is 
the  business  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  of  the  government, 
always  to  be  ready,  in  my  humble  judgment,  to  negotiate  under 
all  circumstances,  whether  there  be  threats  or  no  threats — -whether 
there  be  force  or  no  force  ;  but  the  manner,  and  the  spirit,  and  the 
terms  of  the  negotiation  will  be  varied  by  the  position  that  the 
opposing  party  may  occupy.  And  there  is  nothing  new  in  this. 
We  have  a  treaty  that  is  called  the  treaty  of  Washington,  which 
settled  conflicting  boundary  claims  between  the  United  States, 
embracing  a  portion  of  the  state  of  Maine,  and  the  province  of 
New  Brunswick,  and  it  was  consummated,  as  the  negotiation  was 
held,  while  both  parties  were  standing  on  the  line,  ready,  if  the 
negotiation  failed,  to  establish  their  respective  pretensions  by 
force. 

Sir,  we  sent  a  minister  to  Mexico  to  negotiate  the  payment  for 
indemnity  for  commercial  obligations  and  other  claims ;  but  at 
the  same  time  we  marched  a  force  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and  we 
afterward  dictated  the  terms  of  peace  to  Mexico,  with  a  victori- 


376        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

ous  army  in  her  capital.  I  agree  that  our  position  should  be  made 
equal,  equal  in  every  advantage  for  negotiation  ;  and  if  it  be  true 
— and  there  seems  to  be  ground  to  believe  it  is — that  the  British 
government  has  resorted  to  the  extremely  improper  measure  of 
collecting  a  force  in  those  waters,  preliminary  to  the  negotiation, 
then  I  subscribe  to  every  word  which  has  been  uttered  by  the 
Senator  from  Virginia,  and  implied  in  his  resolution,  that  we 
should  be  represented  there  by  an  equal  force.  One  object  of 
this  resolution  is  to  ascertain  from  the  President  whether  he  has 
sent  such  a  force.  Either  we  believe  that  he  has  sent  such  force 
or  we  believe  that  he  has  not.  If  we  assume,  with  the  Senator 
from  Connecticut,  [Mr.  TOUCET]  that  he  has  not,  and  that  he  is 
indisposed  to  do  so,  and  will  not,  then  it  is  an  insult  to  the  Presi- 
dent to  ask  him  if  he  has  sent  the  force,  which  we  have  concluded 
in  our  own  minds  that  he  has  not  sent.  We  should  at  once  pro- 
ceed to  a  vote  of  censure,  and  not  to  a  resolution  of  inquiry. 


JOHN  M.  CLAYTON  AND  THE  NICARAGUA  TREATY. 

JANUARY    10,    1853. 

MR.  PRESIDENT, — On  the  19th  of  April,  1850,  what  is  called  the 
Nicaragua  Canal  Convention  was  signed  at  Washington  by  John 
M.  Clayton,  then  Secretary  of  State  for  the  United  States,  and 
Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  then  a  minister  here  for  Great  Britain. 
As  approved  by  the  Senate  and  signed  by  the  negotiators,  and 
transmitted  to  Great  Britain,  it  contained,  among  others,  the  fol- 
lowing provisions,  viz : 

"  ART.  I.  The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  hereby  declare 
thai  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  maintain  for  itself  any  exclusive 
control  over  the  said  ship  canal,  agreeing  that  neither  will  ever  erect  or  maintain  any 
fortifications  commanding  the  same,  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof,  or  occupy,  or  fortify,  or 
colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise,  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito 
coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America ;  nor  will  either  make  use  of  any  protection  which 
either  affords,  or  may  afford,  or  any  alliance  which  either  has,  or  may  have,  to  or  with 
any  state  or  people,  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  maintaining  any  such  fortifications,  or 
of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colonizing,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any 
part  of  Central  America,  or  of  assuming  or  exercising  dominion  over  the  same ;  nor  will 
the  United  States  or  Great  Britain  take  advantage  of  any  intimacy,  or  use  any  alliance, 
connection,  or  influence,  that  either  may  possess  with  any  state  or  government  through 
whose  territory  the  said  canal  may  pass,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or  holding,  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  one,  any  rights  or  advantages  in  regard  to 


CLAYTON  AND  BULWER  TREATY.  377 

commerce  or  navigation  through  the  said  canal,  which  shall  not  be  offered  on  the  same 
terms  to  -the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  other. 

"  AKT.  VI.  The  contracting  parties  in  this  convention  engage  to  invite  every  state 
with  which  either  or  both  have  friendly  intercourse,  to  enter  into  stipulations  with  them, 
similar  to  those  which  they  have  entered  into  with  each  other,  to  the  end  that  all  other 
states  may  share  in  the  honor  and  advantage  of  having  contributed  to  a  work  of  such 
general  interest  and  importance  as  the  canal  herein  contemplated.  And  the  contracting 
parties  likewise  agree  that  each  shall  enter  into  treaty  stipulations  with  such  of  the 
Central  American  States  as  they  may  deem  advisable,  for  the  purpose  of  more  effectually 
carrying  out  the  great  design  of  this  convention,  namely,  that  of  constructing  and  main- 
taining the  said  canal  as  a  ship  communication  between  the  two  oceans  for  the  benefit 
of  mankind,  on  equal  terms  to  all,  and  of  protecting  the  same. 

"ART.  VII.  The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  having  not 
only  desired,  in  entering  into  this  convention,  to  accomplish  a  particular  object,  but  also 
to  establish  a  general  principle,  they  hereby  agree  to  extend  their  protection,  by  treaty 
stipulations,  to  any  other  practicable  communications,  whether  by  canal  or  railway,  across 
the  isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  America,  and  especially  to  the  inter-oceanic 
communications,  should  the  same  prove  to  be  practicable,  whether  by  canal  or  railway, 
which  are  now  proposed  to  be  established,  by  the  way  of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama." — 
9  Stat.  (IT.  S.)  at  Large,  995. 

On  the  29th  of  June,  1850,  Sir  Henry  L.  Bulwer  gave  notice  to 
Mr.  Clayton  that  he  was  instructed  to  insist,  in  ratifying  the  con- 
vention, on  an  explanatory  declaration,  that  the  engagements  as  to 
neutral  territory  did  not  apply  to  her  Majesty's  settlement  at 
Honduras  and  its  dependencies.  On  the  4th  of  July,  1850,  John 
M.  Clayton  replied,  that  the  United  States  also  understood  that 
those  engagements  did  not  apply  to  British  Honduras  and  its  de- 
pendencies ;  and  with  these  mutual  explanations,  the  convention 
was  ratified,  and  the  ratifications  were  exchanged. 

The  British  settlement  at  Honduras  and  its  dependencies  consist 
of  the  town  of  Belize,  on  the  coast  of  the  Caribbean  Sea,  with  a 
tract  of  almost  barren  and  uninhabited  country  stretching  inward, 
containing  about  fifty  thousand  square  miles,  and,  as  is  alleged,  of 
certain  islands  lying  near  by  in  that  sea,  named  Ruatan,  Bonacca, 
Utilla,  Barbarat,  Helena,  and  Morat,  which  territory  and  islands 
are  marked,  on  all  British  maps,  as  colonies  of  Great  Britain. 

On  the  17th  of  July,  1852,  the  British  authorities  at  the  Belize 
issued  a  proclamation  announcing  that  the  Queen  had  constituted 
those  islands  a  distinct  colony,  by  the  name  of  the  Bay  of  Islands. 

On  the  6th  of  January,  1853,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
sent  to  the  Senate  an  answer  to  a  previous  call  for  information, 
and  that  answer  contained  the  notes  between  the  late  Secretary 
of  State  and  the  late  British  minister,  declaring  the  construction 
of  the  convention  which  I  have  mentioned. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan  thereupon  said  that  paper 
disclosed  a  very  extraordinary  fact,  to  wit :  that  while  on  its  face, 


378  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

and  as  was  understood  by  the  Senate,  the  convention  included 
British  Honduras  and  its  dependencies,  it  was  without  the  know- 
ledge or  consent  of  the  Senate  explained  by  the  negotiators  at  the 
ratification  to  exclude  them ;  and  that  thus,  in  derogation  of  the 
rights  of  the  Senate,  the  construction  of  the  treaty  was  changed 
in  a  vital  point ;  that  in  this  transaction,  the  executive  department 
of  General  Taylor's  administration  had  committed  a  great  error, 
unprecedented  in  diplomacy.  And  he  protested  that  neither  the 
Senate  nor  himself,  in  approving,  understood  the  convention  as  it 
was  thus  shown  to  have  been  understood  by  the  negotiators  in 
ratifying  it,  and  that  if  it  had  been  so  understood  by  the  Senate, 
it  would  not  have  received  a  single  vote ;  and  in  this  protest  he 
included  the  honorable  Senator  from  Alabama,  [Mr.  KING]  who 
at  the  time  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  ; 
and  he  alleged  that  that  gentleman  had  told  him  that  he  had  sup- 
posed until  that  day,  that  the  project  of  accepting  the  Queen  of 
England's  qualification  of  the  construction  of  the  treaty  had  been 
abandoned,  and  that  the  convention  stood  without  such  qualifica- 
tion on  its  original  provisions. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  DOWNS]  said  that 
he  thought  the  whole  object  of  the  convention  was  to  get  the 
British  out  of  Central  America,  and  that  it  was  only  on  assurances 
given  by  Mr.  Clayton  himself  that  this  was  the  effect  of  the  con- 
vention, that  he  and  others,  so  far  as  he  knew,  had  voted  for  it. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  CHASE]  quoted  from  a 
geographical  work  the  following  description  of  Central  America, 
and  affirmed  that  he  and  the  Senate  understood  that  all  the  region 
thus  described  was  included  in  the  convention,  viz  : 

"  Central  America  is  the  long  and  comparatively  narrow  region  between  latitude  7  deg. 
and  22  deg.  north,  and  longitude  78  deg.  and  94  deg.  west,  connecting  the  continents  of 
North  and  South  America,  and  comprising,  besides  the  Central  American  Confederation, 
Yucatan,  parts  of  Mexico  and  New  Granada,  Poyais,  the  Mosquito  coast,  and  British 
Honduras." 

The  honorable  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  WELLEK]  declared 
that  lie  was  astonished  to  hear  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  say 
that  he  was  surprised  at  anything,  however  stupid,  that  might  be 
done  by  the  late  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Clayton,  and  that  he 
[Mr.  WELLER]  had  never  known  Mr.  Clayton  to  have  any  connec- 
tion with  any  public  affair  in  which  he  did  not  show  himself 
excessively  stupid,  to  say  the  least. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  these  censures  are 
groundless,  and  unintentionally  unjust. 


CLAYTON  AND  BULWER  TREATY.  379 

First.  Granting,  but  only  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
facts  stated  are  true,  I  shall  show  that  the  transaction  is  not  unpre- 
cedented in  diplomacy.  The  ninth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Guada- 
lupe  Hidalgo,  as  signed  by  the  negotiators,  was  struck  out  by  the 
Senate,  and  another  was  substituted  in  its  stead.  The  Congress 
of  Mexico  refused  to  ratify  it,  because  it  had  thus  been  changed, 
as  they  said,  in  a  vital  part.  The  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Bu- 
chanan, by  direction  of  the  President,  Mr.  Polk,  without  the  con- 
sent or  knowledge  of  the  Senate,  signed  and  delivered  a  protocol, 
declaring  that  the  suppression  and  substitution  were  not  under- 
stood by  the  United  States  to  diminish  what  had  been  stipulated 
before,  and  thereupon  the  treaty  was  ratified,  and  the  ratifications 
were  exchanged.  I  do  not  say  here  that  that  transaction  was 
wrong,  or  that,  whether  wrong  or  right,  it  justified  Mr.  Clayton. 
All  I  do  say  is,  that  even  if  Mr.  Clayton's  misconduct  has  been 
such  as  is  alleged,  it  is,  nevertheless,  not  unprecedented  in  diplo- 
macy. 

Secondly.  I  shall  attempt  to  show  that  the  memories  of  the  con- 
plaining  senators  are  at  fault,  and  that  neither  the  whole  nor  the 
chief  object  of  the  convention  was  as  they  now  suppose  they  then 
understood,  to  get  the  British  out  of  Central  America.  The  pre- 
amble declares  its  object  to  be  to  "  set  forth  and  fix  the  views  and 
intentions  of  the  two  nations  with  reference  to  any  means  of  com- 
munication by  ship  canal  which  may  be  constructed  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans,  by  way  of  the  river  San  Juan  de 
Nicaragua,  and  either  or  both  the  lakes  of  Nicaragua  or  Mana- 
gua." This  preamble,  and  the  quotations  from  the  convention 
before  made,  show  that  the  United  States  had  a  very  different 
object  from  that  described  by  the  senators,  unless  we  are  to  sup- 
pose that  the  United  States  had  really  in  view  a  partial,  narrow, 
and  selfish  object ;  while  they  held  out  to  the  other  contracting 
party,  and  to  the  world,  that  they  had  in  view  a  different,  broad, 
comprehensive,  and  beneficent  one  ;  which  of  course  is  not  to  be 
admitted. 

Thirdly.  I  think  the  memories  of  the  honorable  senators  are  at 
fault  again,  and  that  they  did  not,  when  approving  the  convention, 
understand  it  to  include  all  Central  America  as  tJiey  have  now 
described  Central  America.  The  region  about  the  isthmus  which 
divides  North  and  South  America  is  but  thinly  settled  by  Euro- 
peans and  their  descendants,  and  therefore,  as  yet,  very  imper- 


380        DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

fectly  known  in  Europe  and  in  the  United  States,  and  there  is  an 
ever-recurring  confusion  of  names,  as  is  apt  to  happen  in  such 
cases.  The  name  Central  America,  employed  in  the  convention, 
has  a  double  sense,  a  geographical  one  and  a  political  one,  and 
these  are  widely  different.  America  is  divided,  geographically, 
into  North  America,  South  America,  and  Central  America. 
Central  America,  geographically,  is  Middle  America,  viz:  that 
part  of  this  great  continent  which  lies  between  and  connects 
North  America  and  South  America  together.  The  name  is  ap- 
plied in  this  sense  in  the  description  quoted  by  the  Senator  from 
Ohio,  and  so  geographical  Central  America  does  include  not  only 
Honduras  and  the  British  coast,  with  the  five  Central  American 
States,  but  also  the  departments  of  Darien  and  Panama,  and 
Paraguay,  in  New  Granada,  and  the  whole  or  parts  of  six  of  the 
states  of  the  United  States  of  Mexico. 

Other  geographers  apply  the  name  still  more  broadly,  and  em- 
brace all  the  regions  extending  from  latitude  1  deg.  north  to  lati- 
tude 26  deg.  north. 

Mr.  CHASE.  If  the  senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  state  that  I 
read  from  a  work  of  authority.  That  English  work  describes 
Central  America  as  lying  between  two  parallels  of  latitude.  It 
did  not  assert  that  all  the  region  between  those  two  parallels  be- 
longed to  Central  America,  but  named  specifically  those  districts 
or  territories  which  constituted  the  country  so  designated.  And 
I  said  that  we  had  a  right  to  believe,  when  the  treaty  was  before 
us,  that  the  term  "  Central  America,"  used  as  it  is  used,  included 
all  over  which  either  of  the  contracting  parties  claimed,  or  might 
claim,  any  jurisdiction.  Of  course  I  did  not  assert,  or  mean  to 
assert,  that  Great  Britain  intended  simply  to  exclude  herself  from 
that  portion  of  country  over  which  she  had  no  jurisdiction,  and  I 
am  sure  the  Senator  from  New  York  does  not  mean  to  represent 
me  as  making  such  a  statement. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I  will  read  from  the  printed  speech  of  the  honor- 
able Senator  from  Ohio,  to  show  the  use  he  made  of  the  authority 
which  he  quoted.  The  Senate  will  then  judge  whether  he  has 
corrected  me  or  himself.  That  Senator  said  : 

"Now,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  the  British  authorities  at  that  time  con- 
ceived to  be  included  within  the  limits  of  Central  America,  I  wish  to  read  an  extract 
from  a  work  which  I  have  before  me.  It  is  Johnson's  Gazetteer,  published  in  London 
in  1851,  a  work  of  very  high  authority.  Its  description  of  Central  America  is  in  these 
words : 

"'Central  America  is  the  long  and  comparatively  narrow  region  between  latitude 


CLAYTON  AND  BULWER  TREATY.  381 

7  deg.  and  22  deg.  north,  and  longitude  *78  deg.  and  94  deg.  -west,  connecting  the  conti- 
nents of  North  and  South  America,  and  comprising,  besides  the  Central  American  Con- 
federation, Yucatan,  parts  of  Mexico  and  New  Granada,  Poyais,  the  Mosquito  coast,  and 
British  Honduras' 

"  That  is  the  description  which  an  eminent  British  authority  furnishes  to  us  of  Central 
America.  That  is  the  description  which  we  had  a  right  to  believe  was  intended  by  this 
treaty  when  it  was  presented  to  the  Senate." 

This  is  geographical  Central  America.  But  it  is  laid  down  on 
other  maps,  and  described  by  other  geographers,  as  extending  from 
the  7th  to  the  26th  parallel  of  north  latitude.  That  would  em- 
brace not  only  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  but  also  the  capital 
of  Mexico,  the  states  of  Coahuila  and  Tamaulipas,  and  even  a 
part  of  Texas,  in  our  own  republic. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  name  of  Central  America  has  apolitical  * 
sense,  and  means  five  states  on  the  isthmus  lying  between  New 
Granada  on  the  south,  and  Mexico  on  the  north,  which,  under  the 
names  of  Costa  Rica,  Nicaragua,  Salvador,  Guatemala,  and  Hon- 
duras, confederated  themselves  when  they  became  independent 
of  Spain,  and  established  a  republic  called  the  federal  republic  of 
Central  America.  In  the  convulsions  of  that  region,  that  union 
has  been  dissolved  ;  but  the  name  acquired  by  it  still  hangs  around 
those  states,  and  they,  and  they  alone,  are  the  states  described, 
politically,  in  books,  geographies,  and  otherwise,  as  the  states  of 
Central  America. 

Now,  did  the  negotiators  use  the  name  of  Central  America  in 
its  geographical  sense,  or  did  they  use  it  in  its  political  sense  ? 
Certainly  in  its  political  sense. 

For,  1st.  If  they  used  it  in  its  geographical  sense,  then  it  may 
as  well  be  insisted  that  the  convention  embraces  all  between  7 
deg.  and  26  deg.  of  north  latitude,  as  that  it  embraces  all  between 
7  deg.  and  22  deg.  of  north  latitude,  and  this  would  be  to  make  it 
embrace  a  part  of  the  United  States,  which  would  be  absurd. 

2d.  The  geographical  Central  America,  wrhether  broad  or  nar- 
row, embraces  the  regions  which  contain  the  three  celebrated 
passes  from  ocean  to  ocean,  viz  :  Panama,  Nicaragua,  and  Tehuan- 
tepec ;  and  if  that  be  the  sense  in  which  the  name  Central  Amer- 
ica is  used  in  the  convention,  then  the  stipulations  are  already 
made  between  the  two  nations  for  the  construction  and  mainte- 
nance of  canals  or  railway  passages  across  all  these  routes.  But 
the  convention,  on  the  contrary,  expressly  confines  its  care  to  the 
Nicaragua  route,  and  postpones  to  a  future  day  the  making  of 

VOL.  l_25. 


382  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

stipulations  in  regard  to  the  two  other  routes  of  Panama  and 
Tehuantepec. 

3d.  The  term  "  Central  American  States,"  in  the  sixth  article, 
is  equivalent  to  and  illustrates  the  meaning  of  the  term  Central 
America  in  the  first  article. 

4th.  The  convention,  in  describing  the  territory  which  is  to  be 
made  neutral,  names  two  of  the  Central  American  states  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  canal,  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica,  and  then  adds, 
or  any  part  of  Central  America — thus  clearly  implying  that  it 
was  political  Central  America  that  was  intended. 

It  was,  then,  not  geographical,  but  political  Central  America 
that  was  included  in  the  convention,  and  so  the  honorable  sena- 
tors must  have  understood  it  when  they  approved  it,  unless  we 
suppose  them  to  have  been  so  indifferently  informed  that  their 
opinions  were  of  no  value,  which  is  not  to  be  supposed  for  a  mo- 
ment. 

5th.  I  shall  endeavor  to  convince  those  honorable  senators  that 
their  memories  are  still  further  at  fault,  and  that,  when  they 
approved  the  convention,  they  did  not  understand  it  to  include 
British  Honduras  or  the  Belize,  as  its  dependencies,  which  are  the 
same. 

Like  "  Central  America,"  the  name  Honduras  also  has  a  geo- 
graphical sense  and  a  political  sense.  Geographical  Honduras  is 
all  Honduras  from  the  borders  of  Guatemala  to  the  Caribbean 
Sea,  and  includes  Spanish  Honduras  and  British  Honduras — just 
as  the  name  Virginia  long  stood  for  the  whole  Atlantic  border 
from  Carolina  to  Canada ;  but  political  Honduras  is  the  ancient 
province  or  intendency  of  Spanish  Honduras,  as  it  was  when  it 
separated  from  Spain,  and  became  the  state  of  Honduras,  and 
entered  that  federal  republic  of  Central  America;  and  as  it 
came  out  of  that  federal  republic  on  its  dissolution,  and  as  it  has 
remained  hitherto,  and  is  now  the  state  of  Honduras ;  and  that 
state,  in  every  book  or  geography,  and  on  every  map,  in  every 
atlas,  is  divided  and  separated  from  British  Honduras  just  as 
plainly  and  as  broadly  as  Kentucky  is  divided  from  Virginia,  or 
Alabama  from  Georgia,  while  British  Honduras  is  in  every  such 
book  and  atlas  marked  and  designated  with  the  island  before  men- 
tioned as  a  British  colony;  sometimes  by  the  name  of  British 
Honduras,  and  sometimes  by  the  name  of  the  Belize. 

I  know,  indeed,  that  Spain  to  the  last  insisted  that  Great  Britain 


CLAYTON  AND  BULWER  TREATY.  383 

had  only  a  partial  and  limited  right  of  occupancy.  I  know  that 
the  state  of  Guatemala  set  up  the  pretensions  of  Spain,  and  •  still 
insists  upon  them.  I  do  not  say  that  they  are  not  just,  I  shall  be 
glad  if  they  prove  so ;  but  I  know  also  that  Great  Britain  equally 
claims  to  own  British  Honduras  by  absolute  right,  and  that 
although  she  has  two  or  three  times  been  occasionally  dispossessed 
in  the  varying  fortunes  of  war,  she  has  so  claimed  it  since  1667, 
and  has  held  it  undisturbed  since  1783,  the  period  of  our  own 
acknowledged  national  independence.  The  Belize  is  a  British 
town  of  two  thousand  five  hundred  people,  and  with  its  adjacent 
territory  has  been  a  colony  near  two  hundred  years,  governed  by 
British  authority,  and  occupied  by  a  British  garrison.  It  is 
ecclesiastically  connected  with  the  British  diocese  of  Jamaica, 
and  from  1847  to  1850  the  United  States  maintained  a  consul 
there,  who,  with  their  consent,  received  his  exequatur  from  the 
Court  of  St.  James.  In  short,  practically,  the  Belize  is  as  much 
a  British  town,  and  British  Honduras  as  much  a  British  colony, 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  whole  world,  as  Quebec  and  Canada. 

Xow,  who  supposes  that  Great  Britain  intended  to  renounce  that 
town,  post,  and  colony,  under  the  vague  and  equivocal  term  of 
"  any  part  of  Central  America  ?"  No  one  !  Who  supposes  that 
the  United  States  stipulated  for  such  a  renunciation  in  terms  so 
vague  and  uncertain  ?  ~No  one  !  It  is  not  so  that  Britain  resigns 
or  the  United  States  take  dominion.  The  terms,  "  any  part  of 
Central  America,"  then,  did  not  include  British  Honduras,  and  so 
the  honorable  senators  must  have  understood,  if  they  knew  the 
political  condition  of  British  Honduras  as  I  have  described  it. 
That  condition  was  known  here ;  for  on  the  10th  of  May,  1849,  a 
senator  stated  in  debate  here,  thai  four  companies  of  British  troops 
had  marched  from  the  Belize  into  Yucatan,  and  that  this  was  the 
act  of  the  colonial  authorities  of  Great  Britain  at  the  Belize  ;  and 
he  who  made  that  statement  was  no  other  than  the  honorable  Sen- 
ator from  Michigan,  [Mr.  CASS.] 

6th.  But,  waiving  for  argument's  sake  all  the  points  thus  far 
made,  I  shall  next  show  that  the  senators  were  not  ignorant  of 
the  construction  officially  given  Inj  Mr.  Clayton  to  the  convention 
until  the  Qth  of  January,  instant,  when  they  proclaimed  it  as  a 
disclosure  then  obtained  through  the  President's  communication. 

The  ratification  was  made  on  the  4th  of  July,  1850.     On  the 


384  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

14th  of  that  month  the  President  transmitted  to  Congress  a  com- 
munication, which  contained  these  words: 

"  A  copy  of  the  treaty  concluded  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  in 
regard  to  Central  America  is  herewith  submitted.  Its  engagements  apply  to  all  the 
five  states  which  formerly  composed  the  republic  of  Central  America  and  their  depen- 
dencies, of  which  the  island  of  Tigre  was  a  part.  It  does  not  recognize,  affirm,  or 
deny,  the  title  of  the  British  settlement  at  Belize,  which  is  by  the  coast  more  than  five 
hundred  miles  from  the  proposed  canal  at  Nicaragua.  The  question  of  the  British  title 
to  this  district  of  country,  commonly  called  British  Honduras,  and  the  small  islands  adjacent 
to  it,  claimed  as  its  dependencies,  stands  precisely  as  it  stood  before  the  treaty.  No  act  of  the 
late  President's  administration  has  in  any  manner  committed  this  government  to  the  Brit- 
ish title  in  that  territory,  or  any  part  of  it.'' 

This  paper  gave  to  the  senators,  just  two  years,  five  months, 
and  twenty-two  days  ago,  the  same  information  which  surprises, 
shocks,  and  alarms  them  now. 

But,  Mr.  President,  even  this  communication  was  only  a  reitera- 
tion of  the  same  information  before  given  ;  for  on  the  8th  day  of 
July,  1850,  the  folio  wing  official  exposition  appeared  in  the  National 
Intelligencer,  together  with  the  convention  then  just  officially  pro- 
mulgated : 

"  The  leading  object  of  the  treaty  appears  to  be  the  establishment  of  a  ship  canal 
across  the  isthmus  which  connects  North  with  South  America,  under  the  protectorate 
not  only  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  but  of  all  other  nations  which  desire 
the  right  of  passage  through  it  from  ocean  to  ocean  on  the  same  equal  terms. 

"  In  reference  to  political  advantages  connected  with  that  treaty,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  all  the  states  of  Central  America,  comprehending  the  immense  extent  of  country 
from  the  Belize,  commonly  called  the  bay  of  Honduras,  down  to  the  northern  boundary 
of  New  Granada,  is  made  neutral  territory.  No  government  entering  into  tin's  treaty 
can  occupy,  colonize,  fortify,  or  assume  or  exercise  any  dominion  over  any  part  of  the 
Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America,  from  the  boundaries  of  the  bay  of 
Honduras  and  Mexico  on  the  north,  to  those  of  New  Granada  on  the  south.  The  British 
title  to  the  Belize  the  treaty  does  not  in  any  manner  recognize  ;  nor  does  it  Jetty  it,  OR 
ifEDDi.!.  \VITH  IT.  That  Kf.ttlcm.ent  remains,  in  that  particular,  AS  IT  STOOD  PREVIOUSLY  TO 

TliK  TREATY." 

Senators  who  accuse  secretaries  of  stupidity,  or  suppression  and 
fraud,  cannot  be  allowed  to  plead  ignorance  of  official  expositions 
in  the  official  journals. 

Sixthly,  and  last,  I  shall  attempt  to  convince  the  senators  that 
they,  and  the  Senate,  did  understand  that  the  convention  did  not 
include  British  Honduras  when  they  approved  it. 

Mr.  King,  of  Alabama,  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Eelations,  and  the  proper  medium  of  communication 
between  the  Senate  and  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  Senator  from 
Michigan  tells  us  that  Mr.  King  has  stated  to  him  that,  "  after  the 
quasi  ratification  came  from  England,  on  the  29th  of  June,  he  had 
an  interview  with  Mr.  Clayton,  who  desired  to  know  whether  the 
treaty  ought  to  be  sent  back  to  the  Senate  for  its  action,  on  that 


CLAYTON  AND  BULWER  TREATY.  385 

conditional  ratification."  The  only  reason  for  sending  it  back  to 
the  Senate  was,  that  the  Senate  might  have  not  understood  the 
convention  as  not  including  British  Honduras,  and  so  might  object 
to  the  ratification  of  it,  as  thus  explained  by  the  negotiators.  The 
correspondence  between  Mr.  Clayton  and  Mr.  King  tells  the 
result : 

"JULY  4,  1850. 

"  DLAR  SIR, — I  am  this  morning  writing  to  Sir  H.  L.  Bulwer,  and  while  about  to 
decline  altering  the  treaty  at  the  time  of  exchanging  ratifications,  I  wish  to  leave  no 
room  for  a  charge  of  duplicity  against,  our  government,  such  as  that  we  now  pretend  that 
Central  America  in  the  treaty  includes  British  Honduras. 

"  I  shall  therefore  say  to  him,  in  effect,  that  such  construction  was  not  in  the  contem- 
plation of  the  negotiators  or  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  confirmation.  May  I  have  your 
permission  to  add  that  the  true  understanding  was  explained  by  you,  as  Chairman  of 
Foreign  Relations,  to  the  Senate,  before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  Treaty  ?  I  think  it 
due  to  frankness  on  our  part.  Very  truly  yours, 

"JOHN  M.  CLAYTON. 
«  To  Hon.  W.  11.  KING,  U.  8.  Senate." 

"JuLY  4,  1850. 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR, — The  Senate  perfectly  understood  that  the  treaty  did  not  include 
British  Honduras.  Frankness  becomes  our  government ;  but  you  should  be  careful  not 
to  use  any  expression  which  would  seem  to  recognize  the  right  of  England  to  any  portion 
of  Honduras.  Faithfully  your  obedient  servant, 

"W.  R.  KING. 
"  To  Hon.  JOHN  M.  CLAYTON,  Secretary  of  State? 

So  the  proper  organ  of  the  Senate  reported  that  they  perfectly 
understood  that  the  convention  did  not  include  British  Honduras. 
The  accusing  senators  will  not  impeach  the  chairman ;  and  if  they 
do,  I  shall  not  go  with  them.  I  respect  and  honor  that  distinguished 
man — nay,  sir,  I  love  him.  I  have  received  injuries,  many  of 
them,  here.  The  memory  of  them  died  in  the  hour  in  which  they 
were  committed.  But  I  have  received  kindnesses,  benefits  too, 
and  many  of  these  were  received  at  the  hands  of  Willian  II.  King. 
Not  one  of  these  shall  perish  in  my  memory,  until  I  give  an  ac- 
count of  them  to  his  Creator  and  mine.  And  now,  since  those 
honorable  senators  have  so  broadly  assumed  to  speak  for  us  all, 
they  will  riot  now  deny  that  they  did  not  know  what  we  all  "  per- 
fectly understood." 

Just  what  Mr.  King  advised  was  done  by  the  secretary.  He 
took  effectual  care  not  to  use  any  expression  which  should  seem 
to  recognize  the  right  qf  England  to  the  portion  of  Honduras — 
that  is,  to  British  Honduras — wrhich  she  possessed.  That  right 
remains  just  as  it  was  before.  Good  or  bad,  it  is  not  made  worse 
or  better  by  the  treaty.  As  to  the  Bay  of  Islands,  if  it  was  in 
fact  a  dependency  of  British  Honduras  on  the  4th  of  July,  1850, 
then  the  formation  of  a  colony  there  is  not  a  violation  of  the  con- 


386  DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

vention.  If  it  was  not  then  in  fact  a  dependency,  then  that  trans- 
action is  a  violation  of  the  treaty.  But  in  either  case  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  present  question. 

The  Senator  from  Louisiana,  [Mr.  DOWNS]  in  the  very  wanton- 
ness of  censure,  has  supposed  that  not  only  the  Senate,  but  the  late 
President,  General  Taylor,  was  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  conditions 
of  ratification,  and  this  upon  the  ground  merely  that  General 
Taylor  sickened  on  the  4th,  and  died  on  the  9th  of  July.  But  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  now  appear  to  have  known  those 
conditions  on  the  29th  of  June,  and  the  President  may  be  presumed 
to  have  been  intrusted  by  the  Secretary  with  a  fact  that  was  offi- 
cially communicated  to  the  Senate.  Whatever  else  might  have 
been  the  errors  or  misfortunes  of  that  administration,  want  of 
mutual  confidence  between  the  Secretary  of  State  and  his  dis- 
tinguished chief  was  not  one  of  them.  They  stood  together  firmly, 
undivided,  and  inseparable  to  the  last.  Storms  of  faction,  from 
within  their  own  party  and  from  without,  beset  them  ;  and  com- 
binations and  coalitions,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  assailed  them 
with  a  degree  of  violence  that  no  other  administration  has  ever 
encountered.  But  they  never  yielded  and  never  faltered  for  an 
hour.  They  went  on  firmly,  and  firmly  united  together  in  their 
great  work  of  consolidating  the  then  newly  extended  republic 
upon  the  foundations  of  universal  liberty,  and  establishing  its  con- 
tinental power  on  the  foundations  of  commercial  interests  and 
republican  systems.  The  administration  which  they  conducted 
was  beaten  down  not  by  human  hands,  nor  by  human  words,  nor 
by  human  votes ;  but  it  went  down  only  under  a  providential  visi- 
tation, that,  if  it  had  happened  on  the  field  of  Monterey  or  at 
Buena  Yista,  would  have  either  forever  lost,  or  long  postponed, 
the  extension  of  our  borders  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  ocean. 
Those  who  have  profited  by  political  changes  consequent  on  that 
sad  event  may  listen  unmoved  to  the  censures  which  for  two 
years  past  have  howled,  and  still  are  howling,  equally  around  the 
Secretary  of  State  in  his  retirement,  and  over  the  veteran  and 
war-exhausted  President  in  his  grave.  Let  me,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  had  some  humble  portion  of  their  confidence,  and  knew  their 
fidelity  to  each  other  and  to  their  country,  perform,  though  it  may 
be  alone,  the  duty  of  vindicating  them  against  the  clamors  of 
prejudice  and  error. 

And  let  me  say  to  the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  and  to  the  Sena- 


DEATH  OF  SENATOR  TJPHAM.  387 

tor  from  Ohio,  and  even  to  the  Senator  from  Michigan,  that,  long 
as  their  careers  respectively  may  be  protracted,  even,  as  I  hope 
they  may,  to  the  ends  of  natural  lives,  in  ripened  age,  and  diligent 
and  devoted  as  I  know  they  are,  yet  that  it  will  be  happy  for 
them,  and  for  us  all,  if  even  then  they  shall  have  established  claims 
upon  the  affections  of  their  country,  and  the  gratitude  of  mankind, 
equal  to  those  which  were  perfected  in  that  administration — 
broken  off  in  its  seventeenth  month,  but  wisely  conducted  for  that 
short  period  by,  John  M.  Clayton,  the  eminent  statesman  of  Dela- 
ware, and  presided  over  by  Zachary  Taylor,  the  hero  who  indi- 
cated and  opened  the  way  of  the  American  armies  to  the  golden 
gates  of  Mexico. 


DEATH    OF    SENATOE   TJPHAM.* 

JANUARY    15,    1853. 

ME.  PRESIDENT, — How  true  it  is  that  every  day  we  spend  here 
brings  some  fresh  event  to  impress  upon  our  minds  the  fraternity 
of  the  states  and  the  comprehensiveness  of  the  republic!  We 
began  the  week  with  surveying  our  interests  in  the  Caribbean  Sea ; 
we  went  from  thence  to  examine  the  defences  of  the  youngest 
member  of  the  Union  on  the  Pacific  coast ;  and  now,  at  the  end, 
we  are  called  to  make  a  visit  of  condolence  with  the  eldest  of 
the  adopted  states  in  her  eastern  mountain  home. 

Last  summer,  I  stood  beside  the  grave  of  Ethan  Allen,  on  the 
shore  of  Lake  Champlain.  The  lightning  had  descended  and  had 
riven  the  native  marble  slab  which  covered  it,  as  if  nature  herself 
had  been  willing  to  mark  her  appreciation  of  the  free,  yet  turbu- 
lent character  of  the  founder  of  Yermont,  and  captor  of  Ticon- 
deroga.  But  the  rudeness  and  turbulence  of  the  earlier  age  of 
Yermont  have  passed  away,  while  her  intelligence  and  love  of 
freedom  remain,  increased  and  refined  by  art  and  learning. 

WILLIAM  UPHAM  was  of  Yermont,  a  consistent  exponent  of  her 
institutions — the  most  equal  institutions  enjoyed  by  man  in  this 

*  Kemarks  on  the  death  of  Hon.  William  Upham,  a  Senator  from  Vermont,  who  died  in 
Washington,  January  llth,  1853. 


DEBATES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

country  and  in  the  world.  He  was  a  man  of  strong  and  vigorous 
judgment,  which  acted  always  by  a  process  of  sound  inductive 
reasoning,  and  his  compeers  here  will  bear  witness  that  he  was 
equal  to  the  varied  and  vast  responsibilities  of  the  senatorial  trust. 
He  was  a  plain,  unassuming,  unostentatious  man.  He  never  spake 
for  display,  but  always  for  conviction.  He  was  an  honest  and 
just  man.  He  had  gotten  nothing  by  fraud  or  guile  ;  and  so  he 
lived  without  any  fear  of  losing  whatever  of  fortune  or  position 
he  had  attained.  No  gate  was  so  strong,  no  lock  so  fast  and  firm, 
as  the  watch  he  kept  against  the  approach  of  corruption,  or  even 
undue  influence  or  persuasion.  He  exacted  little  for  his  own  state, 
but,  like  her,  was  liberal  to  all  others.  His  national  policy  was 
the  increase  of  industry,  the  cultivation  of  peace,  and  the  patron- 
age of  improvement.  He  adopted  his  opinions  without  regard  to 
their  popularity,  and  he  never  stifled  his  convictions  of  truth,  nor 
suppressed  their  utterance  through  any  fear  of  power  or  of  faction ; 
but  he  was,  on  the  contrary,  consistent  and  constant, 

"  As  pilot  well  expert  in  perilous  wave, 
That  to  a  steadfast  starre  his  course  hath  bent." 

I  was  honored  with  a  place  in  his  friendship,  and  Yermont  is 
intimately  related  to  the  state  from  which  I  come ;  and,  therefore, 
I  have  thought  it  my  right  and  duty  to  speak  a  just  panegyric 
over  his  remains.  I  wish  that  the  wreath  I  have  contributed 
were  more  fit  to  adorn  the  bier  and  grace  the  tomb  of  so  true  a 
representative,  and  so  upright  a  statesman. 

NOTE. — For  a  continuation  of  Speeches  and  Debates  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  see  Vol.  Ill 


FORENSIC    ARGUMENTS. 


FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 


THE   LAW    OF    LIBEL.* 

If  your  honors  please,  one  of  the  most  influential  presses  of  this 
country  has  expressed  the  opinion,  as  appears  in  the  present  re- 
cord, that  if  an  action  for  libel  be  brought  against  an  editor — no 
matter  how  true  the  publication  may  be — yet,  "  as  the  law  is  now 
expounded  and  administered  by  the  Supreme  Court,  the  writer 
has  no  earthly  choice  but  to  bow  his  neck  to  the  yoke,  pay  all 
that  may  be  claimed  of  him,  and  publish  whatever  humiliations 
shall  be  required  of  him,  or  else  prepare  to  be  immediately  ru- 
ined." 

I  trust  to  be  able  to  vindicate  the  law  and  this  court  from  this 
censure,  and  from  the  censoriousness  of  public  opinion  on  the 
same  question. 

Certainly  it  is  true,  notwithstanding  legislative  effort  to  intro- 
duce simplicity  of  pleading  in  Courts  of  Justice,  that  the  defence 
of  the  action  of  libel  in  this  state  has  come  to  be  considered  so 
technical,  complicated,  and  difficult,  that  there  is  a  general  opin- 
ion that  articles  alleged  to  be  libelous  are  defended  with  more 
difficulty  now  than  formerly,  and  with  more  difficulty  in  this 
country  than  in  England. 

I  trust  to  be  able  to  show  that  these  difficulties  result  from  cer- 
tain obiter  dicta  which  have  fallen  from  the  bench  in  regard  to 
pleadings,  and  to  similar  judicial  expressions  in  regard  to  the  na- 
ture and  qualities  of  libels. 

*  Argument  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York  in  the  Cause  of  HORACE  GREELEY 
and  THOMAS  MCELEATH,  ads.  JAMES  FENZKORE  COOPER,  for  Libel.  May  14,  1845. 

2 


392  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

The  court  has  decided  in  many  cases  that  each  plea  must  an- 
swer the  whole  matter,  and  all  the  matters  contained  in  the  count 
to  which  it  relates,  even  though  the  matters  contained  in  the 
count  are  separable  and  separately  and  distinctly  charged  as  libels. 

Secondly.  That  the  defendant  cannot  demur  to  one  separate 
and  several  part  of  libelous  matter  set  forth  in  a  count,  and  deny 
or  justify  other  several  and  distinct  matter  in  the  same  count,  but 
must  demur  to  the  whole  count,  or  plead  to  the  whole  count. 

Thirdly.  For  a  long  series  of  years  the  court  held  that  when  a 
defendant  pleaded  the  general  issue  with  a  special  plea,  to  which 
the  plaintiff  replied  and  the  defendant  demurred,  then  if  the  re- 
plication was  held  good,  the  defendant  could  not  fall  back  upon 
the  declaration,  although  it  was  confessedly  defective ;  because, 
as  was  said,  that  would  be  allowing  the  defendant  to  do  indirectly 
what  he  could  not  do  directly,  plead  and  demur  to  the  same  count. 

The  Court  has  receded  in  part  from  this  rule  in  the  case  of 

16th  Wendell. 

[Here  JUSTICE  BEAEDSLEY  interposed  and  said,  that  although  there  were  such  obiter 
dicta,  yet  it  has  always  been  held  that  the  defendant  could  always,  in  all  cases,  fall  back 
and  attack  the  declaration.] 

Mr.  SEWARD  proceeded :  I  am  grateful  for  this  intimation.  I 
have  found  those  obiter  dicta  disclaimed  in  part,  but  the  rule  re- 
tained, nevertheless,  with  qualifications.  But  I  will  now  consider 
the  rule  as  abolished  altogether. 

I  now  beg  leave  to  refer  your  honors  to  several  cases  which 
show  that  as  the  law  of  pleading  in  libel  cases  always  was  and  yet 
remains  in  England,  the  two  former  principles,  as  well  as  the 
last,  are  erroneous,  and  that  there,  at  least,  the  defendant  may 
plead  the  general  issue  to  the  whole  declaration  and  then  in  sepa- 
rate pleas  answer  any  particular  part  of  any  particular  count,  viz  : 
Wendell's  Starkie,  1,  634 ;  Tidd  603 ;  Stiles  vs.  Nokes,  7  East, 
493  ;  Clarkson'vs.  Lawson,  6  Boyle,  507;  2  Dowing's  P.  E.  641. 

These  cases  were  collected  to  show  that  the  rules  in  question 
and  which  are  maintained  here,  are  a  departure  from  the  law  of 
libel  in  England. 

But  a  case  which  has  been  decided  and  published  since  this  de- 
murrer book  was  made,  supplies  the  most  conclusive  and  satisfac- 
tory proof  of  this  position.  In  the  case  of  Eoot  vs.  Woodruff,  6 
Hill  421,  the  present  learned  Chief  Justice  of  this  court  says: 
"  Every  plea  in  bar  must  contain  a  good  answer  to  all  it  professes 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  393 

to  answer,  or  it  will  be  bad,  but  as  I  understand  the  rule  in  Eng- 
land, the  plea  need  not  go  to  the  whole  count,  it  there  be  other 
pleas  which  cover  the  residue.  In  trespass  without  pleading,  any 
one  plea  going  to  the  whole  count,  defendant  may  by  one  plea 
justify  the  breaking  of  the  close  and  by  another  the  seizing  of  the 
goods.  It  is  enough  that  each  plea  is  good  as  far  as  it  goes,  and 
that  all  of  the  pleas  taken  together  cover  the  whole  count.  I 
shall  not  go  over  the  cases,  but  will  refer  to  one  by  way  of  illus- 
tration. In  Clarksoii  vs.  Lawson  in  Bingham,  587,  the  action  was 
for  libel,  and  there  was  first  a  plea  to  the  whole  declaration,  and 
then  a  plea  of  justification  as  to  a  part  only  of  the  libel.  The 
court  held  that  as  the  wrhole  declaration  was  answered,  and  as  the 
charge  complained  of  was  severable  in  its  nature,  the  plea  to  a 
part  only  of  the  libel  w#s  good.  But  when  a  part  of  the  declara- 
tion remains  wholly  unanswered,  the  plaintiff  must  have  judgment 
by  nil  dicit  as  to  that  part,  and  if  he  demurs  or  answers  over  the 
whole,  the  action  will  be  discontinued.  We  have  departed  from 
these  rules  in  two  particulars. 

1st.  Every  plea  in  bar  must  not  only  contain  a  good  answer  so 
far  as  it  professes  to  go,  but  it  must  answer  the  whole  declaration 
or  count  to  which  it  is  pleaded.  2d.  If  the  whole  be  not  answer- 
ed, the  plaintiff  may  demur,  and  the  action  will  not  therefore  be 
discontinued. 

Since  the  departure  is  admitted  by  the  court,  I  trust  it  is  neither 
presumptuous  nor  disrespectful  to  pray  the  court  to  return  to  the 
ancient  law,  and  I  submit  the  following  reasons  for  a  return  : 

First.  That  the  oldest  law,  until  changed  by  legislative  power, 
is  not  merely  the  better,  but  the  right  and  the  only  law. 

Secondly.  That  the  law  in  England  and  in  this  state  will  con- 
, form,  and  thus  the  same  law  will  be  universal;  while  the  new 
rules  established  here  are  neither  universal  here,  nor  at  all  in  con- 
formity with  the  law  as  established  in  a  country  governed  by  the 
same  jurisprudence. 

Thirdly.  The  new  rule  is  inconvenient  and  impracticable.  The 
plaintiff  may  combine  separate  causee  of  action  in  one  count,  and 
distribute  the  same  causes  in  any  number  of  counts ;  yet  the  de- 
fendant is  not  allowed  to  answer  fully  as  to  each  cause  separately 
and  distinctly,  and  confine  himself  to  such  answer  in  a  single  plea, 
but  he  must  answer  in  each  plea  at  the  expense  of  infinite  amplifi- 


394  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

cation  and  repetition  every  cause  of  action  contained  in  the  same 
count. 

Fourthly.  Although  the  plaintiff  may  combine  one  good  and 
one  bad  cause  of  action  in  the  same  count,  the  defendant  is  not 
allowed  in  that  case  to  deny  or  justify  the  one  and  demur  to  the 
other,  but  he  must  demur  to  both  or  plead  to  both ;  that  is,  he 
must  confess  a  cause  of  action  to  be  good  which  is  manifestly  bad, 
to  obtain  an  opportunity  to  deny  or  justify  a  cause  which  he 
knows  is  false  in  fact. 

What  is  this  but  to  deprive  the  defendant  of  the  right  guaran- 
tied to  every  man,  to  have  the  preliminary  judgment  of  the  court 
whether  he  shall  be  held  to  answer  ? 

And  what  mode  of  defence  is  given  in  lieu  of  the  demurrer 
which  is  denied  in  such  a  case  ?  Why,  on  the  trial  he  may  object 
against  evidence  being  given  on  a  bad  count.  But  are  we  not 
entitled  to  the  judgment  on  the  whole  count?  If  we  are  told  we 
may  move  in  arrest  of  judgment,  we  answer  that  the  verdict  cures 
many  defects  which  would  be  bad  on  demurrer. 

Having  shown  these  departures  from  the  English  jurispru- 
dence in  regard  to  pleading  in  actions  for  libel,  it  will  be  my 
duty  to  endeavor  to  show  a  like  departure  in  regard  to  the  nature 
of  libel. 

I  humbly  submit  that  the  first  count  in  this  declaration  is  bad, 
because  the  words  complained  of  do  not  constitute  a  libel. 

The  words  are — 

"  At  all  events,  having  published  the  letter  excepted  to,  as  a  matter  of  intelligence 
without  any  sort  of  feeling  toward  Mr.  Cooper,  (the  said  plaintiff  meaning)  but  such 
as  his  conduct  in  the  case  seemed  to  excite,  we  have  at  all  times  stood  ready  to  publish 
cheerfully  any  correction  or  contradiction  he  might  choose  to  send  us.  He  (the  said 
plaintiff  meaning)  chooses  to  send  none,  but  a  suit  for  libel  instead.  So  be  it  then. 
Walk  in,  Mr.  Sheriff. 

"  There  is  one  comfort  to  sustain  us  under  this  terrible  dispensation.  Mr.  Cooper 
(meaning  the  said  plaintiff)  will  have  to  bring  his  action  (meaning  said  suit  for  libel) 
to  trial  somewhere.  He  will  not  like  to  bring  it  in  New  York,  (meaning  the  city  of  New 
York)  for  we  (meaning  said  defendants)  are  known  here.  Nor  in  Otsego,  (meaning  the 
countv  of  Otsego)  for  he  (meaning  the  said  plaintiff)  is  known  there,  (thereby  meaning 
that  the  said  plaintiff,  in  consequence  of  being  known  in  the  county  of  Otsego,  was  in 
bad  repute  (here,  and  would  not,  for  (hat  reason,  like  to  bring  a  suit  for  libel  in  said 
county  of  Otsego.") 

First,  and  generally  a  perusal  of  the  declaration,  shows  its  ab- 
surdity. The  plaintiff  complains  of  the  defendants  that  they  have 
maliciously  conceived  and  contrived  to  injure  him  in  his  good 
name,  fame  and  credit,  and  to  bring  him  into  general  contempt 
and  ignominy,  and  for  this  purpose  have  falsely,  wickedly  and 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  395 

maliciously  published  a  false,  scandalous  and  malicious  libel,  con- 
taining false,  malicious  and  defamatory  matter.  And  what  is  this 
matter  that  is  thus  wicked  and  malicious  ?  Here  it  is :  "  Mr. 
Cooper  will  not  like  to  bring  an  action  for  libel  to  trial  in  Otsego 
County,  because  he  is  known  there."  Oh  most  lame  and  impotent 
conclusion  to  such  a  swelling  prologue  ! 

The  libel  reiterates  and  applies  to  the  plaintiff  a  truism  stamped 
with  even  divine  truth,  and  if  the  sentiment  complained  of  be 
libelous,  then  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  and  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel,  are  dangerous  engines.  "  A  prophet  is 
not  without  honor  but  in  his  own  country  and  among  his  own 
kin,  and  in  his  own  house." — Mark  6:4.  "  For  Jesus  himself 
testified  that  a  prophet  had  no  honor  in  his  own  country." — John 
4:44. 

The  sting  of  the  libel  in  this  case,  if  there  be  any,  is  in  inti- 
mating that  a  party  bringing  an  action  would  prefer  a  trial  where 
the  piques,  the  rivalries  and  prejudices  which  assail  every  man  at 
home  could  not  reach  him. 

If  this  harmless  language  shall  be  considered  libelous,  it  must 
be  only  on  the  ground  of  its  falling  within  some  modern  defini- 
tions of  libel  which  have  extended  the  action  of  libel  far  beyond 
its  ancient,  just  and  narrow  limits. 

In  the  case  of  the  People  vs.  Croswell,  3  J.  C.  354,  Hamilton 
a/rguendo  said,  quoting  Lord  Camden,  "  I  have  been  unable  to  find 
a  satisfactory  definition  of  a  libel,  and  I  want  to  submit  one :  A 
libel  is  a  censorious  or  ridiculing  writing,  picture  or  sign,  made 
with  a  mischievous  and  malicious  intent  toward  government, 
magistrates,  or  individuals."  The  Supeme  Court,  in  Steel  vs. 
Southwick,  9  J.  R.  215,  approved  and  adopted  this  definition,  and 
said  it  was  drawn  with  the  utmost  precision. 

[Mr.  Justice  BEARDSLEY  here  inquired  -whether  the  counsel  intended  to  question 
that  definition  •which  had  been  so  long  and  universally  approved  of.  Mr.  SEWARD 
replied,  that  he  confessed  the  temerity  of  thinking  that  the  definition,  at  least  as  it 
is  generally  understood,  enlarged  the  scope  of  actions  beyond  what  was  the  settled 
Common  Law  in  England  and  now  in  America.] 

But  adopting  even  Hamilton's  "  definition,"  it  would  not  em- 
brace the  present  libel.  It  is  not  a  censorious  or  a  ridiculing 
writing.  It  reflects  upon  the  plaintiff,  certainly,  but  not  severely 
or  censoriously,  while  it  neither  affects  nor  betrays  any  sentiment 
of  ridicule. 


396  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

Aware  of  this,  the  plaintiff  seeks  to  insert  a  sting  in  the  pub- 
lication, which  without  that  aid  is  harmless.  And  this  is  done  by 
an  inuendo.  The  inuendo  is  that  the  defendants  meant  that  the 
plaintiff  was  in  bad  repute  in  Otsego  County.  But  an  inuendo 
cannot  extend  the  sense  of  the  words,  unless  by  reference  to  some 
other  matters  which  are  also  spread  upon  the  record  by  a  collo- 
quium. But  here  is  no  colloquium,  and  of  course  the  inuendo 
falls,  unless  the  true,  legitimate,  and  only  meaning  of  the  libel  is 
what  is  charged  by  the  inuendo.  (1  Starkie,  375,  Barbour's  Com. 
Co.  20.)  Now  no  inuendo  is  necessary  or  proper,  because  the 
words  are  neither  ambiguous  nor  are  they  alleged  to  be  so.  They 
mean  just  what  they  say,  that  the  plaintiff  is  known  in  Otsego 
County,  and  therefore  would  not  like  to  bring  an  action  there. 
"  Their  offending  hath  this  extent,  no  more."  Their  meaning 
cannot  be  well  expressed  by  any  equivalent  or  parallel  word& — 
and  certainly  least  of  all  by  the  phrase  that  the  plaintiff  is  held 
in  bad  repute  in  Otsego  County.  They  may  perhaps  imply  the 
idea  that  the  plaintiff  is  not  popular,  not  favored  among  the 
citizens  of  Otsego  County.  And  is  it  libelous  to  allege,  at  least  of 
a  private  citizen  who  neither  holds  nor  seeks  office,  that  he  is  not 
popular,  or  is  unpopular  in  Otsego  County  ? 

Again :  the  pleader,  after  adopting  the  word  repute,  extends 
it  to  mean  reputation,  and  so  this  inoffensive  passage  is  tortured 
into  a  charge  of  such  bad  reputation  against  the  plaintiff  as  ought 
to  disqualify  him  for  the  society  of  his  fellow-citizens.  Common 
sense  revolts  from  such  a  construction.  The  iuuendo  then  falls, 
and  we  find  the  words  in  their  original  form  and  connection. 
Does  the  law  of  this  land  declare  it  libelous  to  write  of  a  party 
litigant  that  he  would  not  like  to  bring  an.  action  in  a  certain  county 
because  he  is  known  there  ?  I  humbly  contend  for  the  contrary. 
Every  libel  is  a  misdemeanor  as  well  as  a  private  wrong.  When 
this  court  shall  decide  that  this  action  can  be  maintained  for 
these  words,  the  law  is  pronounced  that  the  defendants  are  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  which  cannot  be  expiated  without  fine  or 
imprisonment,  or  both.  And  who  will  believe  for  a  moment 
that  such  a  principle  is  law,  or  who  believing  it  could  respect 
such  a  system  of  criminal  jurisprudence. 

Thus  far  I  have  considered  the  libel  in  the  light  of  Hamil- 
ton's definition,  but  I  beg  leave  now  to  submit,  first,  that  this 
definition  is  not  a  part  of  the  law  of  this  state,  and,  secondly. 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  397 

that  it  conflicts  with  the  long  and  well  established  law  of  libel. 
Its  supposed  precision  consists  in  such  an  enlargement  of  terms 
as  will  embrace  almost  every  form  of  written  censure,  without 
raising  any  distinction  between  merely  harmless  vituperation 
which  the  law  spares  and  those  written  calumnies  which  the  law 
condemns  and  punishes.  This  will  appear  by  comparing,  this 
celebrated  modern  definition  with  the  more  elaborated  ancient 
definitions  which  may  be  found  in  elementary  writers  and  acknow- 
ledged text-books.  Starkie  says  :  "  Every  man  has  a  legal  right 
to  be  protected  against  false  and  wilful  communications,  whether 
oral  or  written,  made  to  his  prejudice  or  damage.  But  the  law 
which  recognizes  this  right  also  limits  its  extent.  This  is  done 
by  defining  what  communications  shall  be  regarded  as  substantially 
injurious  and  therefore  actionable,  though  no  special  damage  or 
loss  can  be  shown,  and  by  leaving  all  other  cases  to  the  operation 
of  the  general  principles  of  law.  And  because  the  libel  tends  im- 
mediately to  the  injury  of  the  party,  presumption  stands  in  the 
place  of  proof."  1  Starkie,  14. 

I  insist,  then,  that  to  render  a  publication  actionable,  it  must  be 
"  Defamatory."  This  is  an  ancient  and  strong  word  contained  in 
the  definition  of  libel  given  in  Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crownj  "  So 
also  to  render  words  actionable  per  se,  they  must  be  not  only 
defamatory^  but  calculated  to  vilify  a  man,  and  to  bring  him,  as 
the  books  say,  into  hatred,  contempt,  and  ridicule"  Tliorly  vs. 
Kerry. 

Similar  to  this  is  the  definition  of  libel  given  by  Bacon  :  "A 
malicious  defamation  of  another  in  writing  or  by  signs  or  printing, 
tending  either  to  blacken  the  memory  of  one  who  is  dead,  or  the 
reputation  of  one  who  is  living,  and  thereby  exposing  him  to 
PUBLIC  HATRED,  CONTEMPT  or  RIDICULE."  So  also  a  libel  is  defined 
in  1  Bulstrode,  40,  to  consist  of  slanderous  words  tending  to  the 
infamy,  discredit,  or  disgrace  of  a  party. 

From  these  definitions  it  is  justly  inferred  by  Starkie,  that  an 
imaginary  or  causeless  fear  of  damage  is  not  a  ground  of  action. 
(1  Starkie,  25.) 

A  review  of  the  cases  will  show  that  these  old  definitions  have 
been  practically  retained  and  adhered  to ;  notwithstanding,  judges 
have  in  delivering  their  opinions  approved  the  less  severe  and 
rigid  definitions  of  Blackstone  and  Hamilton. 

O  ,M  ,}•  J,)(;|l 

Thus,  although  this  Court  declared  its  approval   of^Qeneral 
VOL.  1—26. 


398  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

Hamilton's  definition  in  the  case  of  Steele  vs.  Southwick,  9,  J.  R, 
214,  yet  the  libel  in  that  case  was  clearly  so  gross  and  severe  as 
to  fall  within  the  older  descriptions  of  that  offence.  The  libel  was 
in  these  words :  "  Our  array  swore  terribly  in  Flanders,  said  Uncle 
Toby,  and  if  Uncle  Toby  were  here  now,  he  might  say  the  same 
of  modern  swearers.  The  plaintiff  is  no  slouch  at  swearing  to  an 
old  story."  Here  was  a  colloquium,  and  the  Court  justly  said  that 
the  libel  imported  that  the  defendant  swore  with  levity  and  rashly 
and  inconsiderately,  without  due  regard  to  the  solemnity  of  the 
oath,  or  to  the  truth  or  accuracy  of  what  he  said.  Surely,  there 
was  no  need  here  for  a  new  definition.  So  also  in  the  important 
case  of  Riggs  vs.  Denniston,  3,  J.  C.,  205.  This  court  decided 
that  charges  "  that  the  plaintiff  was  a  misanthrope,  a  violent  par- 
tisan, stripping  unfortunate  debtors  of  every  cent ;  then  depriving 
them  of  the  benefit  of  the  act  made  for  their  relief  under  the  most 
trifling  pretences,  wilfully  and  knowingly  perverting  the  law,  (he 
being  a  magistrate,)  for  illegal  and  oppressive  purposes,"  were 
libelous.  Certainly,  this  is  very  different  from  adjudging  that  any 
paper  that  is  censorious  or  ridiculous,  being  written  for  mischie- 
vous purposes,  is  a  libel.  But  I  confess  my  amazement  that  Chan- 
cellor Kent,  after  pronouncing  these  words  libelous,  expressed  a 
doubt  whether  the  law  would  allow  them  to  be  justified — as  if 
the  truth  was  not  always  a  justification,  at  least  in  civil  actions. 
Such  and  for  so  long  has  been  the  judicial  severity  of  this  state  in 
regard  to  the  law  of  libel.  But  the  Supreme  Court,  when  adopt- 
ing Hamilton's  definition,  refers  to  the  case  of  Villars  vs.  Mosely, 
C.  B.  2  Wilson,  403,  decided  in  1769.  The  libel  there  was  : 

"  Old  Villars !  so  strong  of  brimstone  you  smell, 
As  if  not  long  since  you  had  got  out  of  Hell ; 
But  this  damnable  smell  I  no  longer  can  bear : 
Therefore,  I  desire  you  would  no  more  come  here, 
You  old  stinking,  old  nasty,  old  itchy,  old  toad — 
If  you  come  here  any  more,  you  must  pay  for  your  board ; 
You'll  therefore  take  this  as  a  warning  from  me, 
And  never  more  enter  these  doors  while  they  belong  to 

"J.  P." 

This  libel  exhibits  neither  good  taste  nor  good  poetry ;  but  the 
action  was  not  brought  on  that  ground.  Now  it  is  worthy  of 
especial  remark,  that  the  only  part  of  all  this  vile  and  offensive 
vituperation,  censorious  and  ridiculing,  and  contemptuous  as  it  all 
was,  that  was  complained  of,  was  the  imputation  that  the  plaintiff 
had  a  contagious  disease,  which,  in  the  language  of  Justice  Goold, 
tended  to  exclude  him  from  all  society. 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  399 

Having  thus  ascertained  what  the  law  of  libel  was  in  1769,  I 
beg  leave  now  to  remind  your  Honors  that,  in  the  early  stages  of 
that  law,  there  was  no  distinction  between  verbal  and  written 
slander.  Xo  written  words  were  actionable  that  would  not  have 
been  actionable  if  spoken.  I  will  not  go  about  by  a  tedious  way 
to  prove  this ;  it  is  fully  established  in  the  case  of  Thorly  vs.  Kerry, 
4  Taunton,  355,  decided  in  1812.  The  libel  charged  the  plaintiff 
with  having  written  a  scurrilous  address,  &c.  The  following 
points  were  made  by  Sir  James  Mansfield,  in  delivering  the  opinion 
of  the  court : 

"  1st.  That  there  being  no  offence  charged  in  the  publication,  an  action  could  not  have 
been  maintained  for  such  words  spoken. 

"  2d.  That  upon  due  consideration  of  the  whole  subject,  there  was  no  difference  in 
reason  or  principle  between  oral  and  written  slander. 

"  3d.  That  the  rights  of  the  citizen  would  be  sufficiently  guarded  by  applying  to 
libels  the  rules  established  in  cases  of  verbal  slander. 

"  4th.  That  originally  no  difference  was  known,  and  now  it  was  always  discussed,  in 
actions  for  libel,  whether  the  words  would  bear  an  action  if  spoken. 

"  5th.  That  the  argument  that  a  libel  tends  to  promote  a  breach  of  the  peace  is  alto- 
gether irrelevant. 

"  6th.  That  the  other  argument  that  written  slander  evinces  more  malignity  of  pur- 
poses than  that  which  is  verbal,  is  also  irrelevant,  because  the  action  is  sustained  on  the 
ground  not  of  malignity,  but  of  injury  to  the  party. 

"  7th.  That  the  other  argument  that  a  libel  is  more  diffusely  published  is  also  without 
weight,  because  in  the  change  of  times  and  manners  the  reason  has  failed. 

"  8th.  That  the  difference  now  made  in  the  law  in  regard  to  written  and  verbal  slander 
was  first  established  in  the  time  of  Charles  the  Second.  That  if  it  were  a  new  question, 
this  difference  ought  not  to  be  made,  yet  that  it  must  now  be  maintained,  because  it  is 
enforced  by  authorities  too  inveterate  to  be  cast  off." 

Justice  BEAKDSLEY.  "Can  we  go  back  and  subvert  these 
authorities  ?  Does  the  counsel  maintain  that  we  ought  to  do  so  ?" 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I  have  not  the  presumption  to  ask  so  much. 
Although  I  humbly  insist  that  what  was  the  common  law  at  first,  is, 
and  ought  to  be  the  common  law  now,  until  changed  by  legislative 
power.  And  I  think  it  not  above  the  power  nor  unworthy  the 
wisdom  of  this  high  tribunal  to  restore  the  ancient  law.  Such 
restorations  have  been  made  in  other  instances.  Sixty  years 
elapsed  after  the  King's  Bench  sustained  trover  for  a  negro  slave 
before  the  same  high  judiciary,  solemnly  declared  that  a  slave 
could  not  breathe  the  air  of  England.  The  House  of  Lords,  in  the 
case  of  Daniel  O'Connell,  have  restored  the  right  of  challenge  in 
jury  trials,  after  it  had  been  judicially  abolished  for  I  know  not 
how  long  a  period. 

But  if  I  may  not  ask  so  much,  my  argument  will  hold  at  least 
against  carrying  any  further  the  confessedly  unreasonable  and 
<  >ppressive  distinction  between  verbal  slander  and  libel. 


400  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

The  spirit  of  the  law  of  libel,  as  I  contend  it  should  be,  is  main- 
tained in  the  courts  of  South  Carolina.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
that  state  decided  in  the  case  of  the  State  against  Farly,  4  Me  Cord, 
317",  that  the  following  letter  was  not  libelous :  "  As  Mrs.  Raynal 
says  she  has  been  most  cruelly  censured  without  a  cause,  which  is 
absolutely  false,  I  would  advise  her  to  beware,  lest  facts,  which 
are  stubborn  things,  be  brought  to  light,  and  you  will  then  see 
who  you  keep  under  your  roof.  She  need  not  go  among  her  female 
friends  and  say  she  has  been  cruelly  censured  without  a  cause,  as, 
from  her  general  character,  which  is  perfectly  and  universally 
known,  we  are  sure  to  hear  all  she  says."  The  court  decided  that 
the  letter  contained  in  itself  no  specific  charge  of  any  thing  im- 
moral or  criminal,  which  was  calculated  to  render  the  prosecutrix 
ridiculous,  or  to  exclude  her  from  society,  and  therefore  was  not 
libelous. 

Such,  too,  is  the  spirit  of  adjudications  in  Massachusetts,  for  I 
find  the  learned  opinion  of  Sir  James  Mansfield  before  cited,  re- 
viewed and  approved  in  the  case  of  Clark  vs.  Birney,  2d  Picker- 
ing, 116. 

Mr.  Seward  here  cited  the  case  of  Robinson  vs.  Jermyn,  in 
Exchequer  in  England,  1  Price  11,  where  an  association,  who  kept 
a  Cassino  room,  published  a  notice  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Robinson,  a 
clergyman,  was  not  deemed  a  proper  person  to  be  associated  with, 
and  therefore  he  was  excluded  from  the  room.  Graham,  Baron, 
declared  that  he  agreed  with  Sir  James  Mansfield,  and  could  not 
consent'  to  extend  to  libels  severity  which  was  not  applied  to  ver- 
bal slander.  This  severe  discrimination  began  to  be  enforced  in 
the  Court  of  Star  Chamber,  during  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  who 
sustained  prerogative  with  a  high  hand,  and  it  was  perfectly  estab- 
lished during  the  odious  reign  of  the  second  Stuart. 

Justice  BEAEDSLEY  :  "  Can  we  receive  a  proposition  to  restore 
the  old  law  of  libel,  any  more  than  we  can  to  open  the  question 
whether  an  action  of  assumpsit  lies  on  a  promissory  note  ?  Has 
not  this  whole  question  been  settled  since  Lord  Coke's  time  ?  I 
put  the  question  to  the  counsel." 

Mr.  SEWARD:  I  will  reply  to  your  honor  in  the  language  of 
Lord  Coke.  Coke,  as  Attorney-General,  was  an  advocate  of 
the  utmost  rigor  and  severity  in  the  law  of  libel.  When  he  be- 
came a  judge,  and  one  day  out  of  every  fourteen  the  court  was 
engaged  in  slander  suits,  the  case  of  Crofts  vs.  Burr  came  before 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  401 

the  court.  The  words  were,  "  Sir  Herbert  Crofts  keepeth  men  to 
rob  me."  Lord  Coke  said :  "  We  will  not  give  more  favor  unto 
actions  on  the  case  for  words  than  of  necessity  we  ought  to  do 
when  the  words  are  not  apparently  scandalous.3'  These  actions 
being  now  too  frequent. 

I  was  contending,  if  your  honors  please,  for  the  distinction  be- 
tween words  of  mere  censure  or  vituperation  and  those  which 
necessarily  tend  to  degrade  a  party.  Such  a  distinction  was  re- 
cognized in  the  case  of  Forbes  vs.  King,  (1  Dowling,  P.  C.  672.) 
The  defendant,  writing  of  the  plaintiff,  called  him  his  "  Man  Fri- 
day." This  was  held  not  libelous,  without  an  inuendo  that  the 
defendant  thereby  meant  to  degrade  the  plaintiff. 

Having  thus  stated  what  rules  I  think  ought  to  be  applied  in 
determining  whether  words  are  actionable,  I  return  to  examine 
the  libel  complained  of  here.  This  libel  charges  no  act  criminal 
or  immoral,  or  tending  to  degrade  the  plaintiff,  or  to  exclude  him 
from  society.  Let  me  illustrate  the  absurdity  of  the  law  of  libel, 
if  this  publication  be  adjudged  libelous.  If  Horace  Greeley  should 
say  of  a  woman — a  bereaved  and  lone  woman — that  she  is  an 
adulteress,  she  has  no  action ;  but  if  he  write  of  James  Fenimore 
Cooper,  a  man  whose  fame  pervades  perhaps  the  civilized  world, 
that  he  is  known  in  Otsego  county,  and  therefore  would  not  prefer 
to  lay  the  venue  of  this  cause  there,  then  he  is  guilty  of  a  libel, 
and  liable  to  be  punished  civilly  and  criminally  for  each  and 
every  several  copy  of  the  Tribune  which  contains  the  atrocious 
publication.  Such  absurdities  may  be  declared  and  adjudged  to 
be  law,  but  who  will  credit,  or  crediting  them,  who  can  respect 
the  jurisprudence  of  the  country  that  adopts  them  ? 

But  again  ;  what  if  we  do  write  of  the  plaintiff  that  he  is  held 
in  bad  repute  in  Otsego  county,  how  or  why  does  it  follow  that 
he  is  injured  ?  Does  he  live  there  ?  That  is  not  averred.  Has 
he  wife,  children,  family,  or  friends  there?  No  such  thing  is 
averred.  If  held  in  disesteem  or  disrepute  in  Otsego  county,  how 
can  that  impair  the  fame  of  a  man  who,  for  aught  that  appears  on 
the  record,  is  a  cosmopolite,  and  has  a  home  as  comprehensive  as 
his  fame? 

The  next  point  in  our  case  is  that  the  plea  to  the  first  count  is 
good.  The  substance  of  the  plea  is, — 

"  The  defendants  put  in  several  pleas,  and,  in  relation  to  the  first  alleged  libel,  aver 
that  plaintiff,  on  26th  November,  1841,  caused  to  be  printed  in  the  Albany  Argus,  a 


402  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

notice  charging  on  the  defendants  the  publication  of  false  statements ;  that  said  words 
published  by  them  were  in  reply  to,  and  commenting  on,  said  notice  ;  that  plaintiff,  fur 
ten  years,  was  known  to  many  good  citizens  of  Otsego  county,  and  had  the  reputation 
there  of  a  proud,  captious,  censorious,  arbitrary,  dogmatical,  malicious,  illiberal,  revenge- 
ful, and  litigious  man,  wherefore  he  was  in  bad  repute  ;  that  by  means  of  plaintiff  being 
in  such  bad  repute  there,  plaintiff  would  not  like,  and  did  not  like,  to  bring  action  against 
defendants  for  words,  <tc.,  in  the  county  of  Otsego." 

I  am  obliged  to  concede  that  if  the  declaration  be  bad,  then 
this  plea  must  be  also  bad.  My  argument,  therefore,  is,  under 
favor,  that  the  plea  is  sufficient  if  the  declaration  be  good. 

First — the  plea  justifies  the  publication.  But  my  learned  ad- 
versary says  that  the  attributes  applied  to  the  plaintiff  in  the  plea 
are  merely  foibles.  This  is  singular  indeed,  that  PRIDE,  alleged  in 
this  plea,  is  a  weakness;  censoriousness  is  a  fault;  dogmatism, 
malice,  and  revenge  are  blemishes ;  and  even  illiberality  and  liti- 
giousness  are  only  foibles.  Yet,  in  the  plaintiif  's  declaration, 
mere  want  of  generosity,  or  of  kindness,  or  of  the  polish  of  the 
drawing-room,  is  an  immorality  and  an  offence. 

In  truth,  the  plea  is  more  severe  than  the  libel.  The  libel  only 
charges  the  plaintiff  with  being  known  in  Otsego  county,  or  at 
most,  with  being  unpopular  there.  The  plea  affirms  that  he  is 
known  there  unfavorably  as  to  all  the  points  by  which  the  esteem 
of  his  fellow-citizens  could  be  conciliated. 

The  plea  answers  the  inuendo,  which  is  that  the  plaintiff  is 
held  in  bad  repute.  Certainly  no  man  need  to  wish  his  enemy  a 
worse  reputation. 

But  it  is  contended  that  the  plea  is  bad,  because  it  avers  no 
acts  of  misconduct  showing  that  the  plaintiff  deserved  to  be  held 
in  such  bad  repute.  But  the  accusation  is  not  of  acts,  but  of  re- 
pute, and  must  be  proved  true,  not  by  specific  acts,  nor  by  con- 
duct, but  by  repute.  Proof  of  specific  acts,  offences,  or  errors, 
would  not  be  allowed.  (Briggs  vs.  Denniston,  3  J.  C.  E. ;  11 
Price,  225.)  Suppose  we  had  pleaded  that  the  plaintiff  had  com- 
mitted a  crime,  and  thereby  had  forfeited  and  lost  his  character, 
or  had  pleaded  acts  showing  a  want  of  kindness,  gentleness,  and 
courtesy  to  his  neighbors,  such  as  denying  them  access  to  his  beau- 
tiful grounds  on  the  shore  of  the  Otsego  Lake,  or  in  the  forest 
where  Leather  Stocking  held  his  retreat — should  not  we  have  been 
told  that  we  had  not  accused  the  plaintiff  of  these  acts  in  our  libel, 
and  should  not  escape  from  responsibility  for  what  we  had  charged 
by  bringing  new  accusations  ? 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  403 

I  pass  over  the  third  plea,  which  is  defended  upon  the  same 
general  grounds. 

The  second  count  of  the  declaration  sets  forth  and  insists  upon 
three  several  libels.  The  first  of  these  is  as  follows : — 

"  Knowing  what  we  positively  did,  and  do,  of  the  severe  illness  of  the  wife  of  Mr. 
Weed,  and  the  dangerous  state  of  his  eldest  daughter,  at  the  time  of  the  Fonda  trials  in 

auestion — regarding  them  as  we  do — the  jokes  attempted  to  be  cut  by  Fenimore  over 
leir  condition — his  talk  of  the  story  growing  up  from  one  girl  to  the  mother  and  three 
or  four  daughters — his  fun  about  their  probably  having  the  Asiatic  Cholera  among  them, 
or  some  other  contagious  disease,  &c.  <tc.,  however  it  may  have  sounded  to  others,  did 
seem  to  us  rather  inhu — Hallo  there  ! — We  had  like  to  put  our  foot  right  into  it  again, 
after  all  our  tuition.  We  mean  to  say  that,  considering  that  just  the  day  before  Mr. 
Weed  had  been  choked  by  his  counsel  into  surrendering  at  discretion  to  Fenimore,  being- 
assured  by  said  counsel  that,  as  the  law  is  now  expounded  and  administered  by  the  Su- 
preme Court,  he  had  no  earthly  choice  but  to  bow  his  neck  to  the  yoke,  pay  all  that 
might  be  claimed  of  him,  and  publish  whatever  humiliation  should  be  required,  or  else 
prepare  to  be  immediately  ruined  by  the  suits  which  Fenimore  and  Richard  had  already 
commenced,  or  were  getting  ready  for  him  ;  considering  all  this,  and  how  much  Mr.  Weed 
had  paid  and  must  pay  towards  his  subsistence — how  keenly  Weed  has  had  to  smart  for 
speaking  his  mind  of  him — we  did  not  think  that  Fenimore's  talk  at  this  time  and  place 
of  Weed's  family  and  of  Weed  himself,  as  a  man  so  paltry  that  lie  would  pretend  to 
sickness  in  his  family  as  an  excuse  to  keep  away  from  court,  and  resort  to  trick  after 
trick  to  put  off  his  case  for  a  day  or  two — it  seemed  to  us,  considering  the  present  rela- 
tions of  the  parties,  most  uugen — There  we  go  again !" 

We  affirm,  if  your  honors  please,  that  this  count  also  is  bad, 
and  that  the  words  are  not  libelous. 

The  plaintiff  seeks  to  make  a  case  by  the  averment  that  inhu 
was  meant  for  inhuman,  and  that  ungen  was  meant  either  for  un- 
generous  or  imgenflemanly. 

Now  the  inhumanity  alleged  is  defined,  and  it  was  not  inhu- 
manity. It  was  at  most  only  a  want  of  magnanimity.  The  plain- 
tiff took  a  default  against  Thurlow  Weed,  certainly  under  very 
extraordinary  circumstances,  but  still  he  exercised  a  legal  right, 
and  that  exercise,  though  it  was  not  to  be  approved,  was  not  in- 
human. 

The  other  inuendo  is  even  more  unfortunate.  The  plaintiff  un- 
dertakes to  tell  the  court  what  the  defendants  meant,  and  avers 
that  they  meant  one  thing  or  some  other  thing ;  but  his  object 
was  to  conclude  the  defendants  by  defining  one  meaning  only. 
Suppose  the  court  render  judgment  against  the  defendants,  for 
what  are  damages  to  be  rendered  for  denying  to  the  plaintiff  the 
generosity  of  a  millionaire  or  the  graces  of  polished  life  ?  Unge- 
nerous  or  ungentlemanly — one  or  the  other  these  defendants  must 
have  meant ;  but  the  plaintiff,  although  at  liberty  to  choose,  ca*- 
not  determine  between  them.  Either  will  sustain  an  action,  he 
thinks,  and  therefore  either  will  do.  Like  Major  Macheath,  ii, 


404  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

the  Beggar's  Opera,  when  his  first  wife  appeals  to  him,  "  Am  I 
not  your  lawful  wife,"  and  his  newly  married  spouse  says,  "  Shall 
I  not  claim  mine  own,"  the  Major  throws  a  hand  to  each  and 
sings,  "  How  happy  could  I  be  with  either." 

But  suppose  we  adopt  the  former  and  understand  the  libel  to 
charge  the  plaintiff  with  having  acted  ungenerously.  Generosity 
is  not  a  duty  or  moral  obligation.  We  are  required  to  be  just,  not 
to  be  generous.  No  action  will  lie  for  accusing  a  man  of  being 
deficient  in  a  virtue  that  the  law  does  not  expect  a  good  citizen 
to  possess.  Try  the  other  meaning,  ungentlemanly.  The  law  does 
not  expect  or  require  men  to  be  gentlemanly,  or  regard  them  as 
such  ;  or  at  least  before  a  plaintiff  can  receive  damages  for  being 
charged  with  a  want  of  gentleman-like  conduct,  he  must  aver  that 
he  is  a  gentleman ;  and  this  declaration  contains  no  such  avei^ment. 
Now  suppose  a  chimney-sweep  had  brought  an  action  on  such  a 
charge,  could  it  have  been  sustained  ?  Certainly  not ;  and  yet 
there  is  one  law  and  rule  of  justice  for  all  classes  and  for  all  men. 

If  this  action  be  maintained  it  will  be  the  first  instance  in  which 
it  has  ever  been  adjudged  in  this  country  that  it  is  libelous  to  de- 
ny to  any  and  every  man  the  character  and  qualities  of  a  gentle- 
man and  a  man  of  magnanimity.  Then  we  can  hereafter  no  more 
write  of  the  living  than  of  the  dead,  except  to  praise  and  magnify 
them.  I  leave  it  to  your  honors  whether  this  would  promote  ei- 
ther good  principles,  good  morals,  or  good  manners. 

I  pass  the  second  libel  contained  in  this  count  which  is  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  words  complained  of  in  the  third  count. 

The  last  libel  complained  of  is  as  follows  : 

"  Fenimore  (meaning  the  said  plaintiff)  closed  very  effectively  with  an  appeal  for  his 
character,  and  a  picture  of  the  sufferings  of  his  wife  and  family — his  grown-up  daughters 
often  suffused  in  tears  by  these  attacks  on  their  father.  Some  said  this  was  mawkish, 
but  we  consider  it  good  and  think  it  told.  We  have  a  different  theory  as  to  what  the 
girls  were  crying  for,  but  we  won't  state  it,  lest  another  dose  of  Supreme  Court  law  be 
administered  to  us,"  (thereby  meaning  that  the  said  plaintiff,  by  some  unworthy  and 
disreputable  conduct,  was  the  cause  of  affliction  and  tears  in  his  family.) 

I  admit  that  it  was  not  in  the  most  refined  taste  thus  to  bring 
the  plaintiff's  wife  and  children  before  the  public.  But  it  was  not 
the  defendants  who  committed  this  impropriety.  It  was  the  plain- 
tiff himself  who  brought  those  respected  ladies  before  the  public, 
and  in  a  speech  full  of  bitterness  and  reproach  paraded  them  in 
their  sadness  and  "  suffused  with  tears"  before  the  jury  at  Ballston 
Spa,  to  swell  a  verdict  by  their  agony  and  tears. 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  405 

They  accomplished  the  purpose  for  which  the  husband  and  father 
brought  them  upon  the  stage  so  unfit  for  their  action.  The  ver- 
dict rose  in  consideration  of  their  grief  and  sorrow  to  the  required 
amount — it  was  paid  by  the  defendants,  and  they  gave  their  report 
of  the  trial  as  they  lawfully  might.  Look  at  that  report,  and  sav 
whether  it  is  not  expressed  with  manly  courtesy  and  delicacy  that 
had  not  been  deserved  by  the  plaintiif.  Never  was  man  so  in- 
jured, more  tolerant,  more  forbearing  in  the  exercise  of  a  just  re- 
taliation. And  what  is  complained  of  ?  Why,  that  the  defend- 
ants said  they  had  a  different  theory  to  account  for  the  alleged 
grief  of  the  young  ladies.  Could  any  more  trivial  complaint  en- 
gage the  attention  of  this  grave  tribunal  ? 

"Well,  if  this  be  calumny,  who  is  calumniated  ?  If  the  calumny 
be  injury,  who  suffers  ?  Certainly  not  the  plaintiff,  but  the  ladies. 

But  my  adversary  insists  that  the  words  are  libelous  because 
the  defendants  decline  to  give  their  theory  through  fear  of  a  libel 
suit.  True,  but  the  defendants  say  at  the  same  time,  that,  as  the 
law  is  administered,  the  truth,  however  harmless,  is  equally  libel- 
ous with  false  and  malicious  accusations,  so  they  did  not  mean  to 
confess  that  their  theory  would  have  justly  involved  the  conse- 
quences of  a  libel  suit. 

And  what  is  the  sting  found  in  this  harmless  jeu  $  esprit.  That 
the  defendant  meant  to  impute  to  the  plaintiff  some  unworthy  ac- 
tion or  misconduct  whereby  his  wife  and  children  were  afflicted. 
This  inuendo  must  be  rejected  unless  it  be  the  clear  and  only  legal 
meaning  of  the  words  published.  Now  the  words  would  bear 
equally  well  an  entirely  different  explanation.  May  it  not  have 
been  some  unkindness  of  the  father,  neither  unworthy  nor  disrep- 
utable, that  grieved  his  children — might  it  not  have  been  some 
domestic  misfortune  or  calamity  ?  Suppose  it  were  disappoint- 
ment in  love  ?  Certainly  the  publication  of  such  a  theory  would 
not  have  been  libelous,  and  if  the  publication  would  not,  declining 
to  publish  it  would  have  been  innocent :  and  if  it  afforded  any 
cause  of  action  the  action  would  have  accrued  to  the  ladies  and 
not  to  their  father.  I  dismiss  here  the  consideration  of  this  libel, 
and  revert  to  the  pleas  interposed  in  answer  to  this  count.  The 
plea  to  the  first  of  the  libels  in  this  count  is  in  substance  as  fol- 
lows : 

<:  Defendants  by  leave,  <fec.,  say  that  plaintiff  ought  not  to  maintain  action,  (fee.,  because 
they  say  defendants  were  editors,  <fcc.,  and  the  words  constituted  part  of  an  article  giving 
au  account  of  plaintiff's  suit  against  defendants,  tried  at  Ballston  Spa,  on  the  9th  Decent- 


406  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

her,  1842,  and  aver  that  on  such  trial  plaintiff,  in  presence  of  Judge  Willard,  <tc.,  spoke 
words  [substantially  same  as  alleged.] 

"  Defendants  aver  that  at  the  time  of  such  trial,  Weed's  wife  and  children  were  sick, 
not  of  cholera,  <fcc.,  and  that  Weed  was  in  consequence  detained,  these  things  being  known 
to  plaintiff. 

"  Defendants  aver  that  previous  to  said  speaking,  plaintiff  had  brought  three  actions 
against  Weed,  one  against  Hoffman  <t  White,  and  two  against  all — in  one  of  which 
(Weed,  defendant,)  plaintiff  recovered  855  on  13th  April,  1842 ;  in  another  against  all,  $87 
on  14th  September,  1842;  another  noticed  for  trial  as  above;  that  plaintiff  had  on  1st 
December,  1842,  sued  out  three  writs  against  Weed,  White,  <tc.,  all  prosecuted  by 
R.  Cooper,  Attorney,  <tc.,  who  had  them  in  his  possession,  and  shewed  them  by  plaintiff's 
direction  to  H.  Hammond,  Counsel  for  Weed,  who  insisted  that  Weed  should  com- 
promise, Ac.;  who  did  submit  matters  between  himself  and  plaintiff  to  D.  Cady,  and 
agreed  to  sign  and  publish  what  he  should  direct ;  all  which  was  known  to  plaintiff  when 
he  addressed  jury,  &c.;  wherefore  defendants  published. 

"  Defendants  ready  to  verify,  and  pray  judgment 

This  plea  is  good  and  sufficient  because  it  justifies  all  the  matter 
contained  in  the  libel.  The  counsel  complains  that  the  sums  paid 
by  Thurlow  Weed  are  small  and  inadequate  to  justify  the  allega- 
tion that  "Weed  contributed  essentially  to  the  plaintiff's  subsistence. 
They  may  seem  trifling  sums  to  him,  but  this  is  a  natural  difference 
of  estimate  between  the  party  who  paid  and  the  recipient. 
Again,  the  plaintiff's  counsel  says  that  it  is  not  shown  that  his 
remarks  on  the  trial  at  Ballston  were  impertinent.  But  it  is  shown 
they  were  wilfully  false.  And  falsehood  is  impertinent  in  every 
action,  in  every  court,  in  every  relation,  and  in  every  place. 

The  plea  to  the  last  libel  is  in  substance  as  follows : 

"  6th  Plea.  Fo.  80-89. — Defendants  by  leave,  <tc.,  say  that  plaintiff  ought  not  to  main- 
tain action,  &c.,  because  they  say  that  defendants  were  editors,  etc.,  and  aver  that  at  a 
circuit  court  on  9th  December,  1842,  at  Ballston  Spa,  in  a  suit  between  them,  plaintiff 
addressed  the  jury,  and  did  say  words  [to  same  effect  as  charged],  and  defendants 
published  a  true  account.  Defendants  aver  that  it  is  not  true  that  the  family  were  suf- 
fused in  tears  for  reasons  stated  by  plaintiff,  but  say  that  before  that  time  plaintiff  had 
commenced  various  actions  on  frivolous  grounds:  on  1st  July,  1840,  procured  indictment 
against  J.  W.  Webb — on  1st  November,  1842,  commenced  three  actions  against  T.  Weed 
— on  1st  December,  1842,  two  against  Weed.  White  &  Hoffman,  and  one  against  Hoff- 
man <fc  White  ;  and  had,  on  1st  December,  1842,  sued  out  five  capiases  against  Weed. — 
And  these  things  being  known,  <tc.,  plaintiff  fell  into  disesteem,  <fcc.;  and  these  proceed- 
ings and  disesteem  were,  to  wit,  on  the  day  plaintiff  addressed  jury,  known  to  his  wife 
and  family — and  his  wife  and  daughters  and  family  were  for  this  cause  grieved,  as  well 
they  might ;  wherefore  defendants  published. 

This  plea  is  a  sufficient  answer.  It  shows  a  theory  why  the 
plaintiff's  wife  and  daughters  were  grieved  and  afflicted,  and 
wept.  The  counsel  complains  that  we  have  not  adopted  his  ex- 
planation. It  is  enough  that  we  set  forth  our  own  and  are 
obliged  to  prove  it,  and  must  stand  or  fall  by  the  plea  at  the 
trial.  The  learned  counsel  says  that  the  facts  we  have  assigned 
are  not  adequate  for  such  deep  domestic  affliction.  We  reply 
that  the  question  is  not  whether  these  respected  ladies  rationally 


THE  LAW  OF  LIBEL.  407 

wept  for  such  a  cause,  but  whether  they  did  in  fact  weep  from 
that  cause.  I  may  not  speak  for  them,  but  I  confess  that,  in  far 
distant  lands,  I  heard  and  knew  the  fame  of  the  author  of  "  The 
Spy,"  and  of  "  The  Pioneers."  I  rejoiced  as  his  countryman,  and 
as  his  countryman  I  have  sorrowed  and  been  afflicted  by  the  un- 
dignified attitude  the  distinguished  author  has  held  in  the  litiga- 
tion described  in  this  plea.  And  if  I  and  others  of  his  fellow  citi- 
zens have  thus  deplored  his  infatuation,  it  is  not  unnatural  to  sup- 
pose that  the  same  cause  has  brought  regret,  sorrow,  and  even 
tears  into  that  domestic  circle  where  his  great  fame  is  so  greatly 
and  so  fondly  cherished. 

I  will  not  detain  the  court  with  further  reply  to  the  criticisms  on 
the  pleas.  They  will  be  found  fully  answered  in  the  points  sub- 
mitted to  the  court. 

In  conclusion.  I  have  shown  in  the  first  place  that  certain  de- 
partures as  to  the  law  of  pleading,  which  took  place  long  ago  in 
this  court  before  any  of  its  present  members  had  seats  on  the 
bench,  have  rendered  the  defence  in  actions  of  libel  complicated, 
dangerous  and  difficult.  Secondly,  that  obiter  dicta  which  have 
fallen  from  the  bench  have  extended  still  wider  the  broad  and 
dangerous  definitions  of  libel  which  in  an  unfortunate  age  were 
adopted  in  England,  and  have  rendered  it  next  to  impossible  to 
justify  any  libel,  however  true. 

I  beg  leave  with  all  deference  and  respect  to  implore  a  review 
of  the  law  in  all  these  respects.  Actions  of  libel  are  now  at  least 
comparatively  unnecessary.  A  virtuous  and  humble  life  carries 
with  it  its  own  vindication.  And  if  this  be  not  enough,  the  press 
has  the  antidote  to  its  own  poisons.  If  it  sometimes  wounds,  it 
can  effectually  heal.  An  eminent  citizen  who  once  presided  in 
this  court  commenced  public  life  with  actions  in  defence  of  his 
character.  Assailed  as  he  thought  in  the  evening  of  his  life,  he 
appealed  to  the  press,  and  his  vindication  was  complete  and  suc- 
cessful. The  licentiousness  of  the  press  has  impaired  its  power 
to  defame — and  the  worst  libel  ever  published  would  be  effectu- 
ally counteracted  by  a  publication  in  the  simple  words,  "  I  am 
not  guilty,"  if  it  bore  the  signature  of  James  Milnor,  or  of  one 
who  like  him  walked  among  his  countrymen  in  the  ways  of  a 
pure  and  blameless  life. 

The  undesigned  encroachments  on  personal  rights  in  the  law  of 
libel  have  at  length  brought  about  a  conflict  between  the  judiciary 
and  the  press.  The  press  is  a  necessary,  a  potential  institution  in 


408  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

our  democratic  system.  It  is  the  agent  by  which  the  people  ac- 
quire the  information  they  need  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  every 
department  of  the  government — the  judiciary  as  well  as  the  legis- 
lative and  executive  authorities.  All  these  departments,  as  well 
as  the  public  conduct  of  all  citizens,  are  subjected  to  the  scrutiny 
of  an  all-powerful  and  all-controlling  public  opinion,  ascertained, 
collected,  and  pronounced  by  the  public  press.  That  public  opin- 
ion is  higher  than  courts,  and  will,  when  it  is  necessary,  correct 
even  judicial  errors.  The  conductors  of  the  press  have  legitimate 
functions  to  perform,  and  if  they  perform  them  honestly,  fairly, 
and  faithfully,  they  ought  to  be  upheld,  favored  and  protected, 
rather  than  discouraged,  embarrassed  and  oppressed.  Under  such 
circumstances  it  is  neither  wise,  nor  will  it  be  successful,  to  en- 
force on  an  honest,  enlightened  and  patriotic  journal,  the  rules  of 
libel  established  in  the  worst  of  times  in  England — that  if  a  pub- 
lication reflect  upon  any  man  or  magistrate  it  shall  be  presumed, 
without  proof  and  against  all  rational  presumption  of  candor  and 
fairness,  that  the  error  was  intentional,  malicious  and  malignant, 
and  that  vindictive  damages  shall  be  awarded  where  an  honest 
but  unsuccessful  effort  to  justify  is  made.  Far  wiser  and  better 
would  it  be  to  open  the  doors  wider  to  defence  in  such  cases,  and 
to  restore  the  ancient  English  law  which  distinguished  harmless 
invective,  or  that  temperate  and  discreet  censure  or  ridicule  which 
promoted  public  morals,  from  vicious  and  licentious  defamation. 
If  this  course  is  not  taken,  and  we  shall  still  adhere  to  the  dictum 
that  any  censorious  or  ridiculing  writing  shall  be  deemed  mali- 
cious and  therefore  libelous,  the  law  cannot  be  executed,  because 
not  sustained  by  a  sound  public  opinion.  The  action  of  libel  will 
more  and  more  be  relinquished  by  good  men,  for  whom  it  was  de- 
signed, and  be  left  to  fall  more  completely  into  the  hands  of  liti- 
gious and  corrupt  men  as  an  engine  of  extortion  and  oppression. 
The  judgments  of  a  court  will  be  but  lyrutum  fulmen  if  they  be 
not  sustained  by  the  candid  judgment  of  society,  and  will  have  no 
power  to  arrest  the  evil  of  licentiousness.  Whatever  may  be  the 
course  of  courts  of  justice,  the  press  will  go  on  to  perform  its  high 
and  imperative  duties,  sustained  by  the  free  people,  whose  liberties 
it  maintains  and  defends.  To  fetter  it  with  the  star  chamber  re- 
scripts of  libel  will  be  an  effort  as  vain  as  would  be  an  attempt  to 
graduate  and  control  by  the  ancient  laws  of  the  highway  the  velo- 
city of  the  newly  discovered  and  all-revolutionizing  magnetic 
telegraph. 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  409 


DEFENCE    OF    WILLIAM    FREEMAN.* 

INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. — In  1845,  Henry  "Wyatt,  a  convict  in  the  State  Prison  at  Auburn, 
murdered  another  convict.  Wyatt  was  indicted,  and  eminent  counsel  were  applied  to, 
to  defend  him.  But  they  declined,  on  the  eve  of  the  trial,  on  the  ground  that  no  pro- 
vision was  made  for  their  compensation. 

Wyatt  appealed  to  Mr.  Seward's  humanity,  and  he  at  once  consented.  When  the  cir- 
cumstances were  investigated,  reason  was  found  for  the  belief  that  the  prisoner  was 
insane.  The  trial  came  on  in  February,  1846,  and  after  an  impartial  hearing,  the  jury 
disagreed.  On  the  12th  of  March,  succeeding,  a  fearful  tragedy  occurred  near  Auburn. 

William  Freeman,  a  negro,  and  a  native  of  that  place,  who  had  recently  been  dis- 
charged from  five  years'  confinement  in  the  State  Prison,  having  provided  himself  with 
weapons,  proceeded  to  the  house  of  John  G.  Van  Nest,  in  the  suburbs  of  Auburn,  and 
there,  without  notice  and  without  any  apparent  motive,  slew  Mr.  Van  Nest,  a  wealthy  and 
worthy  citizen,  Mrs.  Van  Nest,  her  sleeping  infant,  and  her  aged  mother,  and  wounded 
mortally,  as  was  then  thought,  the  laboring  man  who  dwelt  with  them,  leaving  only  the 
maid-servant  of  the  family,  and  she  only  had  been  spared  because  he  had  been  disabled 
in  the  affray.  He  took  an  old  horse  from  the  stable,  and,  finding  the  animal  unfit  to 
travel,  stabbed  and  left  it  by  the  road-side.  He  proceeded  to  the  house  of  a  relative, 
forty  miles  from  Auburn,  expressing  a  desire  to  remain  there  until  lie  should  recover 
from  his  wounds.  He  was  arrested  and  conveyed  back  to  Auburn,  and  then,  surrounded 
by  the  people  of  Auburn  and  the  adjacent  country,  was  taken  to  the  scene  of  his  crimes, 
to  be  identified  by  the  survivors,  in  the  presence  of  the  dead  bodies  of  his  victims. 

So  fkr  from  manifesting  any  compunction,  he  avowed  the  deed,  and  described  its  de- 
tails, and  laughed  continually  during  the  recital.  The  incensed  people  saw  in  this  and 
other  strange  conduct  of  the  prisoner,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  motive  of  the  crime, 
reason  to  apprehend  that  he  might  escape  punishment,  by  a  plea  of  insanity.  They 
were  easily  made  to  believe  that  the  partial  success  which  had  attended  that  plea  in 
Wyatt's  case,  had  emboldened  the  negro  to  commit  acts  so  atrocious  and  so  horrible. 
They  resolved,  therefore,  and  prepared  to  take  him  from  the  hands  of  the  police,  and  to 
inflict  summary  justice  upon  him. 

This  design,  however,  was  baffled  by  stratagem,  and  the  multitude  reluctantly  dis- 
persed, after  being  assured  by  a  judge  that  Freeman  should  be  tried,  and  "  no  Seward 
should  defend  him." 

Meantime  the  victims  were  buried,  amid  sincere  exhibitions  of  popular  sympathy, 
mingled  with  execrations  against  the  homicide,  and  unsparing  denunciations  of  the  law- 
yer whose  defence  of  Wyatt  was  supposed  in  some  way  to  have  brought  about  these 

*  Argument  in  defence  of  William  Freeman. — Auburn,  July  21  and  22, 1846. 


410  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

revolting  crimes,  and  who  also,  it  was  supposed,  would  have  the  audacity  to  appear  in 
defence  of  the  wretch  who  had  committed  them.  The  clergyman  who  conducted  tlie 
funeral,  carried  the  excitement  to  a  higher  pitch,  by  appealing  to  the  instincts  of  self-preser- 
vation and  against  the  indulgence  of  moderation  and  forbearance  toward  "  adroit  counsel," 
in  their  efforts  to  lower  the  standard  of  moral  accountability  by  the  plea  of  insanity.  Mr. 
Seward's  law-partners  and  his  friends,  overpowered  by  these  demonstrations  of  popular 
prejudice,  gave  pledges  to  the  public  that  he  would  not  outrage  the  prevailing  senti- 
ment, by  defending  the  prisoner.  The  governor,  Silas  Wright,  responded  promptly  to 
the  popular  demand  for  a  special  term  of  the  court,  to  try  both  Wyatt  and  Freeman  on 
the  1st  of  June.  In  the  meantime,  Mr.  Seward  returned  from  Washington,  and  heard 
the  strange  facts  in  the  case  with  pain  and  surprise.  They  raised  a  suspicion  that  the 
prisoner  was  a  lunatic.  He  thereupon  wrote  to  the  most  eminent  members  of  the  Medi- 
cal Faculty  in  New  York,  Connecticut,  and  Massachusetts,  and  called  their  attention  to 
the  case,  as  one  which  interested  science  and  humanity  not  less  than  justice,  and  re- 
quested them  to  attend  on  the  trial  and  make  the  necessary  examinations  of  the  prisoner, 
to  the  end  that  if  he  was  sane  the  law  might  have  its  due  vindication,  and  if  he  was 
not,  the  country  might  be  saved  from  the  crime  of  inflicting  judicial  murder  upon  a 
lunatic.  He  received  favorable  answers,  and  then  rested,  willing  and  anxious  to  leave 
the  conduct  of  the  case  to  any  proper  member  of  the  bar  who  might  be  in  any  way  em 
ployed,  or  induced,  or  assigned  to  defend  the  prisoner.  The  court  assembled.  The 
physicians  pronounced  the  prisoner  a  lunatic.  No  counsel,  however,  appeared  in  his 
behalf,  and  the  people  who  thronged  the  court-house  and  streets  were  expecting  an 
unobstructed  triumph.  Mr.  Seward  however  appeared  and  interposed  a  preliminary 
plea  that  the  prisoner  was  insane.  The  plea  was  received,  but  it  drew  down  upon  Mr. 
Seward  the  public  indignation  in  that  vicinity  and  throughout  the  whole  country,  and 
his  conduct  became  the  subject  of  a  political  issue.  His  own  party  generally  recoiled 
from  a  proceeding  so  unpopular,  while  the  other  party  condemned  him  without  reserve, 
and  without  moderation.  After  a  trial  of  a  fortnight,  as  to  the  sanity  of  the  prisoner, 
the  jury  went  out  for  consultation.  Eleven  were  for  a  verdict  that  he  was  sane,  and  one 
for  a  verdict  that  he  was  insane.  A  private  intimation  of  these  facts  was  conveyed  to 
the  court,  and  a  message  returned  that  a  verdict  might  be  rendered  that  the  prisoner 
was  sane  enough  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong.  The  twelfth  juror  joined  in 
this  verdict,  believing  it  insufficient  to  put  the  prisoner  on  his  trial ;  the  other  eleven, 
however,  privately  knew  that  the  court  would  decide  it  to  be  sufficient.  The  trial  pro- 
ceeded, (Mr.  Seward's  efforts  to  set  aside  the  verdict  having  failed),  and  after  the  lapse 
of  another  fortnight,  a  verdict  of  guilty  was  rendered,  and  the  unconscious  prisoner  was 
sentenced  to  be  executed.  Mr.  Seward  applied  to  the  governor  for  a  pardon,  but  was 
denied.  He  then  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  new  trial.  John  Van  Buren, 
Attorney-General,  appeared  in  opposition.  After  a  patient  hearing  of  the  case,  however, 
the  court  reversed  the  judgment,  and  granted  a  new  trial  The  same  judge,  who  had 
before  tried  and  condemned  the  prisoner,  now  refused  to  try  him  again,  on  the  ground 
of  his  manifest  idiocy.  Indeed,  the  time  soon  arrived  when  all  doubts  were  at  an  end. 

Freeman  died  in  his  cell,  about  a  year  after  his  trial  and  conviction.  A  post  mortem 
examination  was  made  of  his  brain,  and  seven  of  the  physicians  of  Auburn  concurred  in 
a  statement  that  it  was  the  subject  of  a  chronic  disease,  remarkable  in  its  extent.  Such 
is  a  brief  outline  of  this  most  extraordinary  case.  For  other  facts  in  this  interesting 
trial,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  "  Trial  of  William  Freeman,  by  B.  F.  Hall,  Esq., 
Auburn,  N.  Y.,  1847,"  to  the  Memoir,  and  to  the  following  argument : — ED. 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  411 

MAT  IT  PLEASE  THE  COURT — Gentlemen  of  the  jury :  "  THOU  SHALT 
NOT  KILL,"  and,  "  WHOSO  SHEDDETH  MAN'S  BLOOD,  BY  MAN  SHALL  HIS 
BLOOD  BE  SHED,"  are  laws  found  in  the  code  of  that  people  who, 
although  distracted  and  dispersed  through  all  lands,  trace  their 
history  to  the  creation ;  a  history  that  records  that  murder  was 
the  first  of  human  crimes. 

The  first  of  these  precepts  constitutes  a  tenth  part  of  the  juris- 
prudence which  God  saw  fit  to  establish,  at  an  early  period,  for 
the  government  of  all  mankind,  throughout  all  generations.  The 
latter,  of  less  universal  obligation,  is  still  retained  in  our  system, 
although  other  states,  as  intelligent  and  refined,  as  secure  and 
peaceful,  have  substituted  for  it  the  more  benign  principle  that 
good  shall  be  returned  for  evil.  I  yield  implicit  submission  to 
this  law,  and  acknowledge  the  justness  of  its  penalty,  and  the  duty 
of  courts  and  juries  to  give  it  eifect. 

In  this  case,  if  the  prisoner  be  guilty  of  murder,  I  do  not  ask 
remission  of  punishment.  If  he  be  guilty,  never  was  murderer 
more  guilty.  He  has  murdered  not  only  John  G.  Yan  Xest,  but 
his  hands  are  reeking  with  the  blood  of  other,  and  numerous,  and 
even  more  pitiable  victims.  The  slaying  of  Yan  Nest,  if  a  crime 
at  all,  was  the  cowardly  crime  of  assassination.  John  G.  Yan 
Nest  was  a  just,  upright,  virtuous  man,  of  middle  age,  of  grave 
and  modest  demeanor,  distinguished  by  especial  marks  of  the  re- 
spect and  esteem  of  his  fellow-citizens.  On  his  arm  leaned  a 
confiding  wife,  and  they  supported,  on  the  one  side,  children  to 
whom  they  had  given  being,  and,  on  the  other,  aged  and  venera- 
ble parents,  from  whom  they  had  derived  existence.  The  assassi- 
nation of  such  a  man  was  an  atrocious  crime,  but  the  murderer, 
with  more  than  savage  refinement,  immolated  on  the  same  altar, 
in  the  same  hour,  a  venerable  and  virtuous  matron  of  more  than 
three-score  years,  and  her  daughter,  the  wife  of  Yan  Nest,  mother 
of  an  unborn  infant.  Nor  was  this  all.  Providence,  which,  for 
its  own  mysterious  purposes,  permitted  these  dreadful  crimes,  in 
mercy  suffered  the  same  arm  to  be  raised  against  the  sleeping 
orphan  child  of  the  butchered  parents  and  received  it  into  Heaven. 
A  whole  family,  just,  gentle,  and  pure,  were  thus,  in  their  own  house, 
in  the  night  time,  without  any  provocation,  without  one  moment's 
warning,  sent  by  the  murderer  to  join  the  assembly  of  the  just ; 
and  even  the  laboring  man,  sojourning  within  their  gates,  received 


412  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

/the  fatal  blade  into  his  breast,  and  survives  through  the  mercy, 
not  of  the  murderer,  but  of  God. 

For  William  Freeman,  as  a  murderer,  I  have  no  commission  to 
speak.  If  he  had  silver  and  gold  accumulated  with  the  frugality 
of  Croasus,  and  should  pour  it  all  at  my  feet,  I  would  not  stand 
an  hour  between  him  and  the  avenger.  But  for  the  innocent,  it 
is  my  right,  my  duty  to  speak.  If  this  sea  of  blood  was  inno- 
cently shed,  then  it  is  my  duty  to  stand  beside  him  until  his  steps 
lose  their  hold  upon  the  scaffold. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  is  a  commandment  addressed  not  to  him 
alone,  but  to  me,  to  you,  to  the  court,  and  to  the  whole  commu- 
nity. There  are  no  exceptions  from  that  commandment,  at  least 
in  civil  life,  save  those  of  self-defence,  and  capital  punishment  for 
crimes  in  the  due  and  just  administration  of  the  law.  There  is 
not  only  a  question,  then,  whether  the  prisoner  has  shed  the  blood 
of  his  fellow-man,  but  the  question,  whether  we  shall  unlawfully 
shed  his  blood.  I  should  be  guilty  of  murder  if,  in  my  present 
relation,  I  saw  the  executioner  waiting  for  an  insane  man,  and 
failed  to  say,  or  failed* to  do  in  his  behalf,  all  that  my  ability 
allowed.  I  think  it  has  been  proved  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
that,  during  all  this  long  and  tedious  trial,  he  has  had  no  sleepless 
nights,  and  that  even  in  the  day  time,  when  he  retires  from  these 
halls  to  his  lonely  cell,  he  sinks  to  rest  like  a  wearied  child,  on 
the  stone  floor,  and  quietly  slumber^  till  roused  by  the  constable 
with  his  staff  to  appear  again  before  the  jury.  His  counsel  enjoy 
no  such  repose.  Their  thoughts  by  day  and  their  dreams  by  night 
are  filled  with  oppressive  apprehension  that,  through  their  inability 
or  neglect,  he  may  be  condemned. 

I  am  arraigned  before  you  for  undue  manifestations  of  zeal  and 
excitement.  My  answer  to  all  such  charges  shall  be  brief.  When 
this  cause  shall  have  been  committed  to  you,  I  shall  be  happy 
indeed  if  it  shall  appear  that  my  only  error  has  been,  that  I  have 
felt  too  much,  thought  too  intensely,  or  acted  too  faithfully. 

If  error  on  my  part  would  thus  be  criminal,  how  great  would 
yours  be  if  you  should  render  an  unjust  verdict !  Only  four 
months  have  elapsed  since  an  outraged  people,  distrustful  of  judi- 
cial redress,  doomed  the  prisoner  to  immediate  death.  Some  of 
you  have  confessed,  before  you  came  here,  that  you  approved  that 
lawless  sentence.  All  men  now  rejoice  that  the  prisoner  was 
saved  for  this  solemn  trial.  But  if  this  trial,  through  any  wilful 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  413 

fault  or  prejudice  of  yours,  should  prove  only  a  mockery  of  jus- 
tice, it  would  be  as  criminal  as  that  precipitate  sentence.  If  any 
prejudice  of  witnesses,  or  the  imagination  of  counsel,  or  any  ill- 
timed  jest  shall  at  any  time  have  diverted  your  attention,  or  if  any 
pre-judgment  which  you  may  have  brought  into  the  jury  box,  or 
any  cowardly  fear  of  popular  opinion  shall  have  operated  to  cause 
you  to  deny  to  the  prisoner  that  dispassionate  consideration  of  his 
case  which  the  laws  of  God  and  man  exact  of  you,  and  if,  owing 
to  such  an  error,  this  wretched  man  shall  fall  from  among  the  liv- 
ing, what  will  be  your  crime  ?  You  will  have  violated  the  com- 
mandment, "Thou  shalt  not  kill."  It  is  not  the  form  or  letter  of 
the  trial  by  jury  that  authorizes  you  to  send  your  fellow-man  to 
his  dread  account,  but  it  is  the  spirit  that  sanctifies  that  great 
institution ;  and  if,  through  pride,  passion,  timidity,  weakness,  or 
any  cause,  you  deny  the  prisoner  one  iota  of  all  the  defence  to 
which  he  is  entitled  by  the  law  of  the  land,  you  yourselves,  what- 
ever his  guilt  may  be,  will  have  broken  the  commandment, 
"  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder." 

There  is  not  a  corrupt  or  prejudiced  witness,  there  is  not  a 
thoughtless  or  heedless  witness,  who  has  testified  what  was  not 
true  in  spirit,  or  wrhat  was  not  wholly  true,  or  who  has  suppressed 
any  truth,  who  has  not  offended  against  the  same  injunction. 

Nor  is  the  Court  itself  above  that  commandment.  If  these 
Judges  have  been  influenced  by  the  excitement  which  has  brought 
this  vast  assemblage  here,  and  under  such  influence,  or  under  any 
other  influence,  have  committed  voluntary  error,  and  have  denied 
to  the  prisoner  or  shall  hereafter  deny  to  him  the  benefit  of  any 
fact  or  any  principle  of  law,  then  this  Court  will  have  to  answer 
for  the  deep  transgression,  at  that  bar  at  which  we  all  shall  meet 
again.  When  we  shall  appear  there,  none  of  us  can  plead  that 
we  were  insane  and  knew  not  what  we  did  ;  and  by  just  so  much 
as  our  ability  and  knowledge  exceed  those  of  this  wretch,  whom 
the  world  regards  as  a  fiend  in  human  shape,  wilt  our  guilt  exceed 
his,  if  we  be  guilty. 

I  plead  not  for  a  murderer.  I  have  no  inducement,  no  motive 
to  do  so.  I  have  addressed  my  fellow  citizens  in  many  various 
relations,  when  rewards  of  wealth  and  fame  awaited  me.  I  have 
been  cheered  on  other  occasions  by  manifestations  of  popular 
approbation  and  sympathy  ;  and  where  there  was  no  such  encour- 
agement, I  have  had  at  least  the  gratitude  of  him  whose  cause  I 

VOL.  1—27. 


414  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

defended.  But  I  speak  now  in  the  hearing  of  a  People  who  have 
prejudged  the  prisoner,  and  condemned  me  for  pleading  in  his 
behalf.  He  is  a  convict,  a  pauper,  a  negro,  without  intellect, 
sense,  or  emotion.  My  child,  with  an  affectionate  smile,  disarms 
my  care-worn  face  of  its  frown  whenever  I  cross  my  threshold. 
The  beggar  in  the  street  obliges  me  to  give,  because  he  says  "  God 
bless  you,"  as  I  pass.  My  dog  caresses  me  with  fondness  if  I  will 
but  smile  on  him.  My  horse  recognizes  me  when  I  fill  his  man- 
ger. But  what  reward,  what  gratitude,  what  sympathy  and  affec- 
tion can  I  expect  here  ?  There  the  prisoner  sits.  Look  at  him. 
Look  at  the  assemblage  around  you.  Listen  to  their  ill-suppressed 
censures  and  their  excited  fears,  and  tell  me  where  among  my 
neighbors  or  my  fellow  men,  where  even  in  his  heart,  I  can  expect 
to  find  the  sentiment,  the  thought,  not  to  say  of  reward  or  of 
acknowledgment,  but  even  of  recognition.  I  sat  here  two  weeks 
during  the  preliminary  trial.  I  stood  here  between  the  prisoner 
and  the  Jury  nine  hours,  and  pleaded  for  the  wretch  that  he  was 
insane  and  did  not  even  know  he  was  on  trial :  and  when  all  was 
done,  the  Jury  thought,  at  least  eleven  of  them  thought,  that  I 
had  been  deceiving  them,  or  was  self-deceived.  They  read  signs 
of  intelligence  in  his  idiotic  smile,  and  of  cunning  and  malice  in 
his  stolid  insensibility.  They  rendered  a  verdict  that  he  was  sane 
enough  to  be  tried,  a  contemptible  compromise  verdict  in  a  capi- 
tal case  ;  and  then  they  looked  on,  with  what  emotions  God  and 
they  only  know,  upon  his  arraignment.  The  District  Attorney, 
speaking  in  his  adder  ear,  bade  him  rise,  and  reading  to  him  one 
indictment,  asked  him  whether  he  wanted  a  trial,  and  the  poor 
fool  answered,  "N"o.  Have  you  Counsel  ?  No.  And  they  went 
through  the  same  mockery,  the  prisoner  giving  the  same  answers, 
until  a  third  indictment  was  thundered  in  his  ears,  and  he  stood 
before  the  Court,  silent,  motionless,  and  bewildered.  Gentlemen, 
you  may  think  of  this  transaction  what  you  please,  bring  in  what 
verdict  you  can,  but  I  asseverate  before  Heaven  and  you,  that,  to 
the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  does 
not  at  this  moment  know  why  it  is  that  my  shadow  falls  on  you 
instead  of  his  own. 

I  speak  with  all  sincerity  and  earnestness ;  not  because  I  expect 
my  opinion  to  have  weight,  but  I  would  disarm  the  injurious 
impression  that  I  am  speaking,  merely  as  a  lawyer  speaks  for  his 
client.  I  am  not  the  prisoner's  lawyer.  I  am  indeed  a  volunteer 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  415 

in  his  behalf ;  but  society  and  mankind  have  the  deepest  interests 
at  stake.  I  am  the  lawyer  for  society,  for  mankind,  shocked 
beyond  the  power  of  expression,  at  the  scene  I  have  witnessed  here 
of  trying  a  maniac  as  a  malefactor.  In  this,  almost  the  first  of 
such  causes  I  have  ever  seen,  the  last  I  hope  that  I  shall  ever  see, 
I  wish  that  I  could  perform  my  duty  with  more  effect.  If  I  suf- 
fered myself  to  look  at  the  volumes  of  testimony  through  which  I 
have  to  pass,  to  remember  my  entire  want  of  preparation,  the 
pressure  of  time,  and  my  wasted  strength  and  energies,  I  should 
despair  of  acquitting  myself  as  you  and  all  good  men  will  hereaf- 
ter desire  that  I  should  have  performed  so  sacred  a  duty.  But  in 
the  cause  of  humanity  we  are  encouraged  to  hope  for  Divine 
assistance  where  human  powers  are  weak.  As  you  all  know,  I 
provided  for  my  way  through  these  trials,  neither  gold  nor  silver 
in  my  purse,  nor  scrip ;  and  when  I  could  not  think  beforehand 
what  I  should  say,  I  remembered  that  it  was  said  to  those  who  had 
a  beneficent  commission,  that  they  should  take  no  thought  what 
they  should  say  when  brought  before '  the  magistrate,  for  in  that 
same  hour  it  should  be  given  them  what  they  should  say,  and  it 
should  not  be  they  who  should  speak,  but  the  spirit  of  their  Father 
speaking  in  them. 

You  have  promised,  gentlemen,  to  be  impartial.  You  will  find 
it  more  difficult  than  you  have  supposed.  Our  minds  are  liable 
to  be  swayed  by  temporary  influences,  and  above  all,  by  the 
influences  of  masses  around  us.  At  every  stage  of  this  trial,  your 
attention  has  been  diverted,  as  it  will  be  hereafter,  from  the  only 
question  which  it  involves,  by  the  eloquence  of  the  Counsel  for 
the  People*  reminding  you  of  the  slaughter  of  that  helpless  and 
innocent  family,  and  of  the  danger  to  which  society  is  exposed  by 
relaxing  the  rigor  of  the  laws.  Indignation  against  crime,  and 
apprehensions  of  its  recurrence,  are  elements  on  which  public 
justice  relies  for  the  execution  of  the  law.  You  must  indulge  that 
indignation.  You  cannot  dismiss  such  apprehensions.  You  will, 
in  common  with  your  fellow  citizens,  deplore  the  destruction  ol 
so  many  precious  lives,  and  sympathize  with  mourning  relations 
and  friends.  Such  sentiments  cannot  be  censured  when  operating 
upon  the  community  at  large,  but  they  are  deeply  to  be  deplored 
when  they  are  manifested  in  the  jury  box. 

Then  again  a  portion  of  this  issue  has  been  tried,  imperfectly 

*  John  Van  Buren. 


416  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

tried,  unjustly  tried,  already.  A  jury  of  twelve  men,  you  are 
told,  have  already  rendered  their  verdict  that  the  prisoner  is  now 
sane.  The  deference  which  right-minded  men  yield  to  the  opinions 
of  others,  the  timidity  which  weak  men  feel  in  dissenting  from 
others,  may  tempt  you  to  surrender  your  own  independence.  I 
warn  you  that  that  verdict  is  a  reed  which  will  pierce  you  through 
and  through.  That  jury  was  selected  without  peremptory  chal- 
lenge. Many  of  the  jurors  entered  the  panel  with  settled  opinions 
that  the  prisoner  was  not  only  guilty  of  the  homicide,  but  sane, 
and  all  might  have  entertained  such  opinions  for  all  that  the 
prisoner  could  do.  It  was  a  verdict  founded  on  such  evidence  as 
could  be  hastily  collected  in  a  community  where  it  required  moral 
courage  to  testify  for  the  accused.  Testimony  was  excluded 
upon  frivolous  and  unjust  pretences.  The  cause  was  submitted  to 
the  jury  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  and  under  circumstances  calculated 
to  convey  a  malicious  and  unjust  spirit  into  the  jury  box.  It  was 
a  strange  celebration.  The  dawn  of  the  Day  of  Independence 
was  not  greeted  with  cannon  or  bells.  No  lengthened  procession 
was  seen  in  our  streets,  nor  were  the  voices  of  orators  heard  in  our 
public  halls.  An  intense  excitement  brought  a  vast  multitude 
here,  complaining  of  the  delay  and  the  expense  of  what  was  deemed 
an  unnecessary  trial,  and  demanding  the  sacrifice  of  a  victim  who 
had  been  spared  too  long  already.  Four  hours  that  assemblage 
was  roused  and  excited  by  denunciations  of  the  prisoner,  and  ridi- 
cule of  his  deafness,  his  ignorance,  and  his  imbecility.  Before  the 
jury  retired,  the  court  was  informed  that  they  were  ready  to  render 
the  verdict  required.  One  juror,  however,  hesitated.  The  next 
day  was  the  Sabbath.  The  jury  were  called,  and  the  court  re- 
monstrated with  the  dissentient,  and  pressed  the  necessity  of  a 
verdict.  That  juror  gave  way  at  last,  and  the  bell  which  sum- 
moned our  citizens  to  church  for  the  evening  service,  was  the 
signal  for  the  discharge  of  the  jury,  because  they  had-  agreed. 
Even  thus  a  legal  verdict  could  not  be  extorted.  The  eleven 
jurors,  doubtless  under  an  intimation  from  the  court,  compromised 
with  the  twelfth,  and  a  verdict  was  rendered,  not  in  the  language 
vof  the  law,  that  the  prisoner  was  "not  insane,"  but  that  he  was 
"  sufficiently  sane,  in  mind  and  memory,  to  distinguish  between 
right  and  wrong ;"  a  verdict  which  implied  that  the  prisoner  was 
at  least  partially  insane,  was  diseased  in  other  faculties  beside  the 
memory,  and  partially  diseased  in  that,  and  that,  although  he  had 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  417 

mind  and  memory  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong  in  the 
abstract,  yet  that  he  had  not  reason  and  understanding  and  will  to 
regulate  his  conduct  according  to  that  distinction ;  in  short,  a  ver- 
dict by  which  the  jury  unworthily  evaded  the  question  submitted 
to  them,  and  cast  upon  the  court  a  responsibility  which  it  had  no 
right  to  assume,  but  which  it  did  nevertheless  assume,  in  violation 
of  the  law.  That  twelfth  juror  was  afterward  drawn  as  a  juror 
in  this  cause,  and  was  challenged  by  the  counsel  for  the  people 
for  partiality  to  the  prisoner,  and  the  challenge  was  sustained  by 
the  court,  because,  although  he  had,  as  the  court  say,  pronounced 
by  his  verdict  that  the  prisoner  was  sane,  he  then  declared  that  he 
believed  the  prisoner  insane,  and  would  die  in  the  jury  box  before 
he  would  render  a  verdict  that  he  was  sane.  Last  and  chief  of 
all  objections  to  that  verdict  now,  it  has  been  neither  pleaded  nor 
proved  here,  and  therefore  is  not  in  evidence  before  you.  I  trust 
then  that  you  will  dismiss  to  the  contempt  of  mankind  that  jury 
and  their  verdict,  which  thus  equivocated  upon  law  and  science, 
health  and  disease,  crime  and  innocence. 

Again.  An  inferior  standard  of  intelligence  has  been  set  up 
here  as  a  standard  of  the  negro  race,  and  a  false  one  as  a  standard 
of  the  Asiatic  race.  This  prisoner  traces  a  divided  lineage.  On 
the  paternal  side  his  ancestry  is  lost  among  the  tiger  hunters  on 
the  gold  coast  of  Africa,  while  his  mother  constitutes  a  portion 
of  the  small  remnant  of  the  Narragansett  tribe.  Hence  it  is  held 
that  the  prisoner's  intellect  is  to  be  compared  with  the  depreciat- 
ing standard  of  the  African,  and  his  passions  with  the  violent  and 
ferocious  character  erroneously  imputed  to  the  aborigines.  Indi- 
cations of  manifest  derangement,  or  at  least  of  imbecility,  ap- 
proaching to  idiocy,  are  therefore  set  aside,  on  the  ground  that 
they  harmonize  with  the  legitimate  but  degraded  characteristics 
of  the  races  from  which  he  comes.  You,  gentlemen,  have,  or 
ought  to  have,  lifted  up  your  souls  above  the  bondage  of  prejudices 
so  narrow  and  so  mean  as  these.  The  color  of  the  prisoner's  skin, 
and  the  form  of  his  features,  are  not  impressed  upon  the  spiritual, 
immortal  mind  which  works  beneath.  In  spite  of  human  pride, 
he  is  still  your  brother,  and  mine,  in  form  and  color  accepted  and 
approved  by  his  Father,  and  yours,  and  mine,  and  bears  equally 
with  us  the  proudest  inheritance  of  our  race — the  image  of  our 
Maker.  Hold  him  then  to  be  a  MAN.  Exact  of  him  all  the  re- 
sponsibilities which  should  be  exacted  under  like  circumstances  if 


418  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

he  belonged  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  and  make  for  him  all  the 
allowances,  and  deal  with  him  with  all  the  tenderness  which,  under 
like  circumstances,  you  would  expect  for  yourselves. 

The  prisoner  was  obliged — no,  his  counsel  were  obliged,  by  law, 
to  accept  the  plea  of  Not  Guilty,  which  the  court  directed  to  be 
entered  in  his  behalf.  That  plea  denies  the  homicide.  If  the 
law  had  allowed  it,  we  would  gladly  have  admitted  all  the  mur- 
ders of  which  the  prisoner  was  accused,  and  have  admitted  them 
to  be  as  unprovoked  as  they  were  cruel,  and  have  gone  directly 
before  you  on  the  only  defence  upon  which  we  have  insisted,  or 
shall  insist,  or  could  insist — that  he  is  irresponsible,  because  he 
was  and  is  insane. 

We  labor,  not  only  under  these  difficulties,  but  under  the  further 
embarrassment  that  the  plea  of  insanity  is  universally  suspected. 
It  is  the  last  subterfuge  of  the  guilty,  and  so  is  too  often  abused. 
But  however  obnoxious  to  suspicion  this  defence  is,  there  have 
been  cases  where  it  was  true  ;  and  when  true,  it  is  of  all  pleas  the 
most  perfect  and  complete  defence  that  can  be  offered  in  any  hu- 
man tribunal.  Our  Saviour  forgave  his  judges  because  "  they 
knew  not  what  they  did."  The  insane  man  who  has  committed  a 
crime,  knew  not  what  he  did.  If  this  being,  dyed  with  human 
blood,  be  insane,  you  and  I,  and  even  the  children  of  your  affec- 
tions, are  not  more  guiltless  than  he. 

Is  there  reason  to  indulge  a  suspicion  of  fraud  here  ?  Look  at 
this  stupid,  senseless  fool,  almost  as  inanimate  as  the  clay  moulded 
in  the  brick-yard,  and  say,  if  you  dare,  that  you  are  afraid  of 
being  deceived  by  him.  Look  at  me.  You  all  know  me.  Am  I 
a  man  to  engage  in  a  conspiracy  to  deceive  you  and  defraud  jus- 
tice ?  Look  on  us  all,  for  although  I  began  the  defence  of  this 
cause  alone,  thanks  to  the  generosity,  to  the  magnanimity  of  an 
enlightened  profession,  I  come  out  strong  in  the  assistance  of 
counsel  never  before  attached  to  me  in  any  relation,  but  strongly 
grappled  to  me  now,  by  these  new  and  endearing  ties.  Is  any 
one  of  us  a  man  to  be  suspected  ?  The  testimony  is  closed.  Look 
through  it  all.  Can  suspicion  or  malice  find  in  it  any  ground  to 
accuse  us  of  a  plot  to  set  up  a  false  and  fabricated  defence  ?  I  will 
give  you,  gentlemen,  a  key  to  every  case  where  insanity  has  been 
wrongfully,  and  yet  successfully  maintained.  Gold,  influence, 
popular  favor,  popular  sympathy,  raised  that  defence,  and  made 
it  impregnable.  But  you  have  never  seen  a  poor,  worthless,  spir- 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  419 

itless,  degraded  negro  like  this,  acquitted  wrongfully.  I  wish 
this  trial  may  prove  that  such  an  one  can  be  acquitted  rightfully. 
The  danger  lies  here.  There  is  not  a  WHITE  man  or  WHITE  woman 
who  would  not  have  been  dismissed  long  since  from  the  perils  of 
such  a  prosecution,  if  it  had  only  been  proved  that  the  offender 
was  so  ignorant  and  so  brutalized  as  not  to  understand  that  the 
defence  of  insanity  had  been  interposed. 

If  he  feign,  wTho  has  trained  the  idiot  to  perform  this  highest 
and  most  difficult  of  all  intellectual  achievements  ?  Is  it  I  ? 
Shakspeare  and  Cervantes  only,  of  all  mankind,  have  conceived 
and  perfected  a  counterfeit  of  insanity.'  Is  it  I  ?  Why  is  not  the 
imposition  exposed,  to  my  discomfiture  and  the  prisoner's  ruin  ? 
Where  was  it  done  ?  Was  it  in  public,  here  ?  Was  it  in  secret, 
in  the  jail?  His  deafened  ears  could  not  hear  me  there  unless  I 
were  also  overheard  by  other  prisoners,  by  jailers,  constables,  the 
sheriff,  and  a  cloud  of  witnesses.  Who  has  the  keys  of  the  jail  ? 
Have  I  ?  You  have  had  sheriff,  jailer,  and  the  whole  police  upon 
the  stand.  Could  none  of  these  witnesses  reveal  our  plot  ?  Were 
there  none  to  watch  and  report  the  abuse  ?  When  they  tell  you, 
or  insinuate,  gentlemen,  that  'this  man  has  been  taught  to  feign 
insanity,  they  discredit  themselves,  as  did  the  Roman  sentinels, 
who,  appointed  to  guard  the  sepulchre  of  our  Saviour,  said,  in  ex- 
cuse of  the  broken  seal,  that  while  they  slept  men  came  and  rolled 
away  the  stone. 

I  advance  towards  the  merits  of  the  cause.  The  law  which  it 
involves  will  be  found  in  the  case  of  Kleim,  tried  for  murder  in 
1844,  before  Judge  Edmonds,  of  the  first  circuit,  in  the  city  of 
ISTew  York,  reported  in  the  Journal  of  Insanity  for  January,  1846, 
at  page  261.  I  read  from  the  report  of  the  judge's  charge  : 

"  He  told  the  Jury  that  there  was  no  doubt  that  Kleim  had  been  guilty  of  the  killing 
imputed  to  him,  and  that  under  circumstances  of  atrocity  and  deliberation  which  were 
calculated  to  excite  in  their  minds  strong  feelings  of  indignation  against  him.  But  they 
must  beware  how  they  permitted  such  feelings  to  influence  their  judgment.  They  must 
bear  in  mind  that  the  object  of  punishment  was  not  vengeance,  but  reformation  ;  not  to 
extort  from  a  man  an  atonement  for  the  life  which  he  cannot  give,  but  by  the  terror  of 
the  example,  to  deter  others  from  the  like  offences,  and  that  nothing  was  so  likely  to  de- 
stroy the  public  confidence  in  the  administration  of  criminal  justice,  as  the  infliction  of 
its  pains  upon  one  whom  Heaven  has  already  afflicted  with  the  awful  malady  of  in- 
sanity.'1 

These  w^ords  deserve  to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold  upon  tablets 
of  marble.  Their  reason  and  philosophy  are  apparent.  If  you 
send  the  lunatic  to  the  gallows,  society  will  be  shocked  by  your 
inhumanity,  and  the  advocates  for  the  abolition  of  capital  punish 


420  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

ment  will  find  their  most  effective  argument  in  the  fact  that  a 
jury  of  the  country,  through  ignorance  or  passion,  or  prejudice, 
have  mistaken  a  madman  for  a  criminal. 
The  report  of  Judge  Edmonds'  charge  proceeds  : 

"  It  was  true  that  the  plea  of  insanity  was  sometimes  adopted  as  a  cloak  for  crime, 
yet  it  was  unfortunately  equally  true,  that  many  more  persons  were  unjustly  convicted, 
to  whom  their  unquestioned  insanity  ought  to  have  been  an  unfailing  protection." 

This  judicial  answer  to  the  argument  that  jurors  are  too  likely  to 
be  swayed  by  the  plea  of  insanity,  is  perfect  and  complete. 
Judge  Edmonds  further  charged  the  jury — 

"  That  it  was  by  no  means  an  eas$  matter  to  discover  or  define  the  line  of  demarka- 
tion  where  sanity  ended  and  insanity  began,"  and  that  it  was  often  "  difficult  for  those  most 
expert  in  the  disease  to  detect  or  explain  its  beginning,  extent,  or  duration,"  "  that  the 
classifications  of  the  disease  were  in  a  great  measure  arbitrary,  and  the  jury  were  not 
obliged  to  bring  the  case  of  the  prisoner  within  any  one  of  the  classes,  because  the  symp- 
toms of  the  different  kinds  were  continually  mingling  with  each  other." 

The  application  of  this  rule  will  render  the  present  case  perfectly 
clear,  because  it  appears  from  the  evidence  that  the  prisoner  is 
laboring  under  a  combination  of  mania  or  excited  madness,  with 
dementia  or  decay  of  the  mind. 

Judge  Edmonds  furnishes  you  with  a  balance  to  weigh  the  tes- 
timony in  the  case,  in  these  words  : 

"  It  was  important  that  the  jury  should  understand  how  much  weight  was  to  be  given 
to  the  opinions  of  medical  witnesses.  The  opinions  of  men  who  had  devoted  themselves 
to  the  study  of  insanity  as  a  distinct  department  of  medical  science,  and  studied  recent 
improvements  and  discoveries,  especially  when  to  that  knowledge  they  added  the  expe- 
rience of  personal  care  of  the  insane,  could  never  be  safely  disregarded  by  Courts  and 
Juries ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  opinions  of  physicians  who  had  not  devoted  their 
particular  attention  to  the  disease,  were  not  of  any  more  value  than  the  opinions  of  com- 
mon persons." 

This  charge  of  Judge  Edmonds  furnishes  a  lamp  to  guide  your 
feet,  and  throws  a  clear  and  broad  light  over  your  path.  He 
acknowledges,  in  the  first  place,  with  distinguished  independence 
for  a  judge  and  a  lawyer,  that  "  the  law,  in  its  slow  and  cautious 
progress,  still  lags  far  behind  the  advance  of  true  knowledge."  An 
insane  person  is  one  who,  at  the  time  of  committing  the  act, 
labored  under  such  a  defect  of  reason  as  not  to  know  the  nature 
and  quality  of  the  act  he  was  doing,  or  if  he  did  know  it,  did  not 
know  he  was  doing  what  was  wrong;  and  the  question  is  not 
whether  the  accused  knew  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong 
generally,  but  whether  he  knew  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong  in  regard  to  the  very  act  with  which  he  is  charged."  "  If 
some  controlling  disease  was  in  truth,  the  acting  power  within 
him,  which  he  could  not  resist,  or  if  he  had  not  a  sufficient  use  of 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  421 

his  reason  to  control  the  passions  which  prompted  him,  he  is  not 
responsible.  But  it  must  be  an  absolute  dispossession  of  the  free 
and  natural  agency  of  the  human  mind.  In  the  glowing  but  just 
language  of  Erskine,  it  is  not  necessary  that  Reason  should  be 
hurled  from  her  seat,  it  is  enough  that  Distraction  sits  down  beside 
her,  holds  her  trembling  in  her  place,  and  frightens  her  from  her 
propriety." 

Judge  Edmonds  proceeds : 

"  And  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  moral  as  well  as  the  intellectual  faculties  may  be 
so  disordered  by  the  disease  as  to  deprive  the  mind  of  its  controlling  and  directing  power. 

"  In  order  then  to  establish  a  crime,  a  man  must  have  memory  and  intelligence  to 
know  that  the  act  he  is  about  to  commit  is  wrong ;  to  remember  and  understand,  that  if 
lie  commit  the  act,  he  will  be  subject  to  punishment ;  and  reason  and  will  to  enable  him 
to  compare  and  choose  between  the  supposed  advantage  or  gratification  to  be  obtained 
by  the  criminal  act,  and  the  immunity  from  punishment  which  he  will  secure  by  abstain- 
ing from  it. 

"  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  have  not  intelligence  enough  to  have  a  criminal  intent  and 
purpose  ;  and  if  his  moral  or  intellectual  powers  are  either  so  deficient  that  he  has  not 
sufficient  will,  conscience,  or  controlling  mental  power;  or  if  through  the  overwhelming 
violence  of  mental  disease  his  intellectual  power  is  for  the  time  obliterated,  he  is  not  a 
responsible  moral  agent." 

The  learned  Judge  recommends  to  the  jury, 

"  As  aids  to  a  just  conclusion,  to  consider  the  extraordinary  and  unaccountable  altera- 
tion in  the  prisoner's  whole  mode  of  life ;  the  inadequacy  between  the  slightness  of  the 
cause  and  the  magnitude  of  the  offence  ;  the  recluse  and  ascetic  life  which  he  had  led ; 
his  invincible  repugnance  to  all  intercourse  with  his  fellow  creatures ;  his  behavior  and 
conduct  at  the  time  the  act  was  done,  and  subsequently  during  his  confinement;  and  the 
stolid  indifference  which  he  alone  had  manifested  during  the  whole  progress  of  a  trial  upon 
which  his  life  or  death  depended." 

Kleim  was  acquitted,  and  sent,  according  to  law,  to  the  State 
Lunatic  Asylum  at  Utica.  The  Superintendent  of  the  Asylum,  in 
a  note  to  this  report,  states  that  Kleim  is  uniformly  mild  and  plea- 
sant, has  not  asked  a  question,  or  spoken  or  learned  the  name  of 
any  one  ;  seems  very  imperfectly  to  recollect  the  murder  or  the 
trial ;  says  he  "  was  put  in  prison ;  does  not  know  what  for ;  and  was 
taken  to  the  court,  but  had  no  trial ;"  that  his  bodily  health  is 
good,  but  that  his  mind  is  nearly  gone — quite  demented. 

You  cannot  fail,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  to  remark  the  extraor- 
dinary similarity  between  the  case  of  Kleim,  as  indicated  in  the 
charge  of  Judge  Edmonds,  and  that  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  If 
I  were  sure  you  would  receive  such  a  charge,  and  be  guided  by  it, 
I  might  rest  here,  and  defy  the  eloquence  of  the  Attorney  General. 
The  proof  of  insanity  in  this  case  is  of  the  same  nature,  and  the 
disease  in  the  same  form  as  in  the  case  of  Kleim.  The  only  dif- 
ference is,  that  the  evidence  here  is  a  thousand  times  more  con- 
clusive. But  Judge  Edmonds  does  not  preside  here.  Kleim  was 
a  white  man,  Freeman  is  a  negro.  Kleim  set  fire  to  a  house,  to 


422  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

burn  only  a  poor,  obscure  woman  and  her  child.  Here  the  mad- 
man destroyed  a  whole  family,  rich,  powerful,  honored,  respected 
and  beloved.  Kleim  was  tried  in  the  city  of  New  York ;  and  the 
community  engaged  in  their  multiplied  avocations,  and  heedless 
of  a  crime  not  unfrequent  there,  and  occurring  in  humble  life,  did 
not  overawe  and  intimidate  the  court,  the  jury,  or  the  witnesses. 
Here  a  panic  has  paralyzed  humanity.  No  man  or  woman  feels 
safe  until  the  maniac  shall  be  extirpated  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Kleim  had  the  sympathies  of  men  and  women,  willing  witnesses, 
advocates  sustained  and  encouraged  by  popular  favor,  and  an 
impartial  jury.  Freeman  is  already  condemned  by  the  tribunal 
of  public  opinion,  and  has  reluctant  and  timorous  witnesses,  coun- 
sel laboring  under  embarrassments  plainly  to  be  seen,  and  a  jury 
whose  impartiality,  although  it  ought  to  have  been  ascertained  at 
the  beginning,  is  yet  to  be  proved. 

The  might  that  slumbered  in  this  maniac's  arm  was  exhausted 
in  the  paroxysm  which  impelled  him  to  his  dreadful  deeds.  Yet 
an  excited  community,  whose  terror  has  not  yet  culminated,  de- 
clare that,  whether  sane  or  insane,  he  must  be  executed  to  give 
safety  to  your  dwellings  and  theirs.  I  must  needs  then  tell  you 
the  law,  which  will  disarm  such  cowardly  fear.  If  you  acquit  the 
prisoner,  he  cannot  go  at  large,  but  must  be  committed  to  jail,  to 
be  tried  by  another  jury,  for  a  second  murder.  Your  dwellings 
therefore  will  be  safe.  If  such  a  jury  find  him  sane,  he  will  then 
be  sent  to  his  fearful  account,  and  your  dwellings  will  be  safe.  If 
acquitted,  he  will  be  remanded  to  jail,  to  await  a  third  trial,  and 
your  dwellings  will  be  safe.  If  that  jury  convict,  he  will  then  be 
executed,  and  your  dwellings  will  be  safe.  If  they  acquit,  he 
will  still  be  detained  to  answer  for  a  fourth  murder,  and  your 
dwellings  will  be  safe.  Whether  the  fourth  jury  acquit  or  con- 
vict, your  dwellings  will  still  be  safe  :  for  if  they  convict,  he  wiD 
then  be  cut  off;  and  if  they  acquit,  he  must,  according  to  the  law 
of  the  land,  be  sent  to  the  Lunatic  Asylum,  there  to  be  confined 
for  life.  You  may  not  slay  him,  then,  for  the  public  security, 
because  the  public  security  does  not  demand  the  sacrifice.  No 
security  for  home  or  hearth  can  be  obtained  by  judicial  murder. 
God  will  abandon  him  who,  through  cowardly  fear,  becomes  such 
a  murderer,  /also  stand  for  the  security  of  the  homes  and  hearths 
of  my  fellow  citizens,  and  have  as  deep  an  interest,  and  as  deep  a 
stake  as  any  one  of  them.  Here  are  my  home  and  hearth,  exposed 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  423 

to  every  danger  that  can  threaten  theirs ;  but  I  know  that  security 
cannot  exist  for  any,  if  feeble  man  undertakes  to  correct  the 
decrees  of  Providence. 

The  Counsel  for  the  People  admit  in  the  abstract  that  insanity 
excuses  crime,  but  they  insist  on  rules  for  the  regulation  of  insanity 
to  which  that  disease  can  never  conform  itself.  Dr.  FOSGATE  testi- 
fied that  the  prisoner  was  insane.  He  was  asked  by  the  Attorney 
General,  "  "What  if  the  law,  nevertheless,  hold  to  be  criminal  that 
same  state  of  mind  which  you  pronounce  insanity  ?"  He  answered 
with  high  intelligence  and  great  moral  firmness,  "  The  law  cannot 
alter  the  constitution  of  man.  as  it  was  given  him  by  his  Maker." 

Insanity  such  as  the  Counsel  for  the  People  would  tolerate,  never 
did  and  never  will  exist.  They  bring  its  definition  from  Coke, 
Blackstone  and  Hale,  and  it  requires  that  by  reason  either  of 
natural  infirmity  or  of  disease,  the  wretched  subject  shall  be  un- 
able to  count  twenty,  shall  not  know  his  father  or  mother,  and 
shall  have  no  more  reason  or  thought  than  a  brute  beast. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  SPENCER,  and  the  claim  of 
the  Attorney  General,  an  individual  is  not  insane  if  you  find  any 
traces  or  glimmerings  of  the  several  faculties  of  the  human  mind, 
or  of  the  more  important  ones.  Dr.  SPENCEK  has  found  in  the 
prisoner,  memory  of  his  wrongs  and  suiferings,  hunger  to  be  ap- 
peased, thirst  to  be  quenched,  choice  between  bread  and  animal 
food,  love  of  combat,  imperfect  knowledge  of  money,  anger  and 
malice.  All  of  Dr.  SPENCER'S  questions  to  the  accused  show  that, 
in  looking  for  insanity,  he  demands  an  entire  obliteration  of  all 
conception,  attention,  imagination,  association,  memory,  under- 
standing and  reason,  and  every  thing  else.  There  never  was  an 
idiot  so  low,  never  a  diseased  man  so  demented. 

You  might  as  well  expect  to  find  a  man  born  without  eyes,  ears, 
nose,  mouth,  hands  and  feet,  or  deprived  of  them  all  by  disease, 
and  yet  surviving,  as  to  find  such  an  idiot,  or  such  a  lunatic,  as 
the  Counsel  for  the  People  would  hold  irresponsible.  The  reason 
is,'  that  the  human  mind  is  not  capable,  while  life  remains,  of  such 
complete  obliteration.  What  is  the  human  mind  ?  It  is  imma- 
terial, spiritual,  immortal ;  an  emanation  of  the  Divine  Intelligence, 
and  if  the  frame  in  which  it  dwells  had  preserved  its  just  and 
natural  proportions,  and  perfect  adaptation,  it  would  be  a  pure 
and  heavenly  existence.  But  that  frame  is  marred  and  disordered 
in  its  best  estate.  The  spirit  has  communication  with  the  world 


424  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

without,  and  acquires  imperfect  knowledge  only  through  the  half- 
opened  gates  of  the  senses.  If,  from  original  defects,  or  from 
accidental  causes,  the  structure  be  such  as  to  cramp  or  restrain 
the  mind,  it  becomes  or  appears  to  be  weak,  diseased,  vicious  and 
wicked.  I  know  one  who  was  born  without  sight,  without  hear- 
ing, and  without  speech,  retaining  the  faculties  of  feeling  and 
smell.  That  child  was,  and  would  have  continued  to  be  an  idiot, 
incapable  of  receiving  or  communicating  thoughts,  feelings  or 
affections;  but  tenderness  unexampled,  and  skill  and  assiduity 
unparalleled,  have  opened  avenues  to  the  benighted  mind  of  Laura 
Bridgman,  and  developed  it  into  a  perfect  and  complete  human 
spirit,  consciously  allied  to  all  its  kindred,  and  aspiring  to  Heaven. 
Such  is  the  mind  of  every  idiot,  and  of  every  lunatic,  if  you  can 
only  open  the  gates,  and  restore  the  avenues  of  the  senses ;  and 
such  is  the  human  soul  when  deranged  and  disordered  by  disease, 
imprisoned,  confounded,  benighted.  That  disease  is  insanity. 

Doth  not  the  idiot  eat  ?  Doth  not  the  idiot  drink  ?  Doth  not 
the  idiot  know  his  father  and  his  mother  ?  He  does  all  this  be- 
cause he  is  a  man.  Doth  he  not  smile  and  weep  ?  Do  you  think 
he  smiles  and  weeps  for  nothing  ?  He  smiles  and  weeps  because 
he  is  moved  by  human  joys  and  sorrows,  and  exercises  his  reason, 
however  imperfectly.  Hath  not  the  idiot  anger,  rage,  revenge  ? 
Take  from  him  his  food,  and  he  will  stamp  his  feet  and  throw  his 
chains  in  your  face.  Do  you  think  he  doth  this  for  nothing  ?  He 
does  it  all  because  he  is  a  man,  and  because,  however  imperfectly, 
he  exercises  his  reason.  The  lunatic  does  all  this,  and,  if  not 
quite  demented,  all  things  else  that  man,  in  the  highest  pride  of 
intellect,  does  or  can  do.  He  only  does  them  in  a  different  way. 
You  may  pass  laws  for  his  government.  Will  he  conform  ?  Can 
he  conform  ?  What  cares  he  for  your  laws  ?  He  will  not  even 
plead ;  he  cannot  plead  his  disease  in  excuse.  You  must  inter- 
pose the  plea  for  him,  and  if  you  allow  it,  he,  when  redeemed 
from  his  mental  bondage,  will  plead  for  you  when  he  shall  return 
to  your  Judge  and  his.  If  you  deny  his  plea,  he  goes  all  the 
sooner,  freed  from  imperfection,  and  with  energies  restored,  into 
the  presence  of  that  Judge.  You  must  meet  him  there,  and  then, 
no  longer  bewildered,  stricken  and  dumb,  he  will  have  become  as 
perfect,  clear  and  bright,  as  those  who  reviled  him  in  his  degrada- 
tion, and  triumphed  in  his  ruin. 

And  now  what  is  insanity  ?     Many  learned  men  have  defined 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  425 

it  for  us,  but  I  prefer  to  convey  my  idea  of  it  in  the  simplest  man- 
ner. Insanity  is  a  disease  of  the  body,  and  I  doubt  not  of  the 
brain.  The  world  is  astonished  to  find  it  so.  They  thought  for 
almost  six  thousand  years  that  it  was  an  aiFection  of  the  mind 
only.  Is  it  strange  that  the  discovery  should  have  been  made  so 
late  ?  You  know  that  it  is  easier  to  move  a  burden  upon  two 
smooth  rails  on  a  level  surface,  than  over  the  rugged  ground. 
It  has  taken  almost  six  thousand  years  to  learn  that.  But  moral- 
ists argue  that  insanity  shall  not  be  admitted  as  a  physical  disease, 
because  it  would  tend  to  exempt  the  sufferer  from  responsibility, 
and  because  it  would  expose  society  to  danger.  But  who  shall 
know,  better  than  the  Almighty,  the  ways  of  human  safety,  and 
the  bounds  of  human  responsibility  ? 

And  is  it  strange  that  the  brain  should  be  diseased  ?  What  or- 
gan, member,  bone,  muscle,  sinew,  vessel  or  nerve  is  not  subject 
to  disease  ?  What  is  physical  man,  but  a  frail,  perishing  body, 
that  begins  to  decay  as  soon  as  it  begins  to  exist  ?  What  is  there 
of  animal  existence  here  on  earth  exempt  from  disease  and  decay  ? 
Nothing.  The  world  is  full  of  disease,  and  that  is  the  great  agent 
of  change,  renovation  and  health. 

And  what  wrong  or  error  can  there  be  in  supposing  that  the 
mind  may  be  so  affected  by  disease  of  the  body  as  to  relieve  man 
from  responsibility  ?  You  will  answer,  it  would  not  be  safe.  But 
who  has  assured  you  of  safety  ?  Is  not  the  way  of  life  through 
dangers  lurking  on  every  side,  and  though  you  escape  ten  thou- 
sand perils,  must  you  not  fall  at  last  ?  Human  life  is  not  safe,  nor 
intended  to  be  safe,  against  the  elements.  Neither  is  it  safe,  nor 
intended  to  be  safe,  against  the  moral  elements  of  man's  nature. 
It  is  not  safe  against  pestilence,  nor  against  war,  against  the  thun- 
derbolts of  heaven,  nor  against  the  blow  of  the  maniac.  But  com- 
parative safety  can  be  secured,  if  you  will  be  wise.  You  can 
guard  against  war,  if  you  will  cultivate  peace.  You  can  guard 
against  the  lightning,  if  you  will  learn  the  laws  of  electricity,  and 
raise  the  protecting  rod.  You  will  be  safe  against  the  maniac,  if 
you  will  watch  the  causes  of  madness,  and  remove  them.  Yet 
after  all,  there  will  be  danger  enough  from  all  these  causes  to  re- 
mind you  that  on  earth  you  are  not  immortal. 

Although  my  definition  would  not  perhaps  be  strictly  accurate, 
I  should  pronounce  insanity  to  be  a  derangement  of  the  mind, 
character  and  conduct,  resulting  from  bodily  disease.  I  take  this 


426  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

word  derangement,  because  it  is  one  in  common  every  day  use. 
"We  all  understand  what  is  meant  when  it  is  said  that  anything  is 
ranged  or  arranged.  The  houses  on  a  street  are  ranged,  if  built 
upon  a  straight  line.  The  fences  on  your  farms  are  ranged.  A 
single  object  too  may  be  ranged.  A  tower,  if  justly  built,  is 
ranged ;  that  is,  it  is  ranged  by  the  plummet.  It  rises  in  a  per- 
pendicular range  from  the  earth.  A  file  of  men  marching  in  a 
straight  line  are  in  range.  "  Range  yourselves,  men,"  though  not 
exactly  artistical,  is  not  an  uncommon  word  of  command,  Is"ow 
what  do  we  mean  when  we  use  the  word  "  Pranged  ?"  Mani- 
festly that  a  thing  is  not  ranged,  is  not  arranged,  is  out  of  range. 
If  the  houses  on  the  street  be  built  irregularly,  they  are  deranged. 
If  the  walls  be  inclined  to  the  right  or  left,  they  are  deranged.  If 
there  be  an  unequal  pressure  on  either  side,  the  tower  will  lean, 
that  is,  it  will  be  deranged.  If  the  file  of  men  become  irregular, 
the  line  will  be  deranged.  So  if  a  man  is  insane.  There  was  a 
regular  line  which  he  was  pursuing ;  not  the  same  line  which  you 
or  I  follow,  for  all  men  pursue  different  lines,  and  every  sane 
man  has  his  own  peculiar  path.  All  these  paths  are  straight,  and 
all  are  ranged,  though  all  divergent.  It  is  easy  enough  to  disco- 
ver when  the  street,  the  wall,  the  tower,  or  the  martial  procession 
is  deranged.  But  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  determine  when  the 
course  of  an  individual  life  has  become  deranged.  We  deal  not 
then  with  geometrical  or  material  lines,  but  with  an  imaginary 
line.  "We  have  no  physical  objects  for  landmarks.  We  trace 
the  line  backward  by  the  light  of  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory 
evidence,  which  leaves  it  a  matter  almost  of  speculation  whether 
there  has  been  a  departure  or  not.  In  some  cases,  indeed,  the 
task  is  easy.  If  the  fond  mother  becomes  the  murderer  of  her 
offspring,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  she  is  deranged.  If  the  pious 
man,  whose  steps  were  firm  and  whose  pathway  led  straight  to 
heaven,  sinks  without  temptation  into  criminal  debasement,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  he  is  deranged.  But  in  cases  where  no  natural 
instinct  or  elevated  principle  throws  its  light  upon  our  research, 
it  is  often  the  most  difficult  and  delicate  of  all  human  investiga- 
tions to  determine  when  a  person  is  deranged. 

We  have  two  tests,  first,  to  compare  the  individual  after  the 
supposed  derangement  with  himself  as  he  was  before.  /Second,  to 
compare  his  course  with  those  ordinary  lines  of  human  life  which 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  427 

we  expect  sane  persons,  of  equal  intelligence,  and  similarly  situ- 
ated, to  pursue. 

If  derangement,  which  is  insanity,  mean  only  what  we  have 
assumed,  how  abs'urd  is  it  to  be  looking  to  detect  whether  memory, 
hope,  joy,  fear,  hunger,  thirst,  reason,  understanding,  wit,  and 
other  faculties,  remain  ?  So  long  as  life  lasts,  they  never  cease  to 
abide  with  man,  whether  he  pursue  his  straight  and  natural  way, 
or  the  crooked  and  unnatural  course  of  the  lunatic.  If  he  be 
diseased,  his  faculties  will  not  cease  to  act.  They  will  only  act 
differently.  It  is  contended  here  that  the  prisoner  is  not  deranged 
because  he  performed  his  daily  task  in  the  State  Prison,  and  his 
occasional  labor  afterward  ;  because  he  grinds  his  knives,  fits  his 
weapons,  and  handles  the  file,  the  axe  and  the  saw,  as  he  was  in- 
structed, and  as  he  was  wont  to  do.  Now,  the  Lunatic  Asylum 
at  Utica  has  not  an  idle  person  in  it,  except  the  victims  of  absolute 
and  incurable  dementia,  the  last  and  worst  stage  of  all  insanity. 
Lunatics  are  almost  the  busiest  people  in  the  world.  They  have 
their  prototypes  only  in  children.  One  lunatic  will  make  a  garden, 
another  drive  the  plough,  another  gather  flowers.  One  writes 
poetry,  another  essays,  another  orations.  In  short,  lunatics  eat, 
drink,  sleep,  work,  fear,  love,  hate,  laugh,  weep,  mourn,  die. 
They  do  all  things  that  sane  men  do,  but  do  them  in  some  peculiar 
way.  It  is  said,  however,  that  this  prisoner  has  hatred  and  anger, 
that  he  has  remembered  his  wrongs,  and  nursed  and  cherished 
revenge;  wherefore,  he  cannot  be  insane.  Cowper,  a  moralist 
who  had  tasted  the  bitter  cup  of  insanity,  reasoned  otherwise  : 

"  But  violence  can  never  longer  sleep 
Than  human  passions  please.     In  ev'ry  heart 
Are  sown  the  sparks  that  kindle  fi'ry  war ; 
Occasion  needs  but  fan  them  and  they  blaze, 
The  seeds  of  murder  in  the  breast  of  man." 

Melancholy  springs  oftenest  from  recalling  and  brooding  over 
wrong  and  suffering.  Melancholy  is  the  first  stage  of  madness, 
and  it  is  only  recently  that  the  less  accurate  name  of  monomania 
has  been  substituted  in  the  place  of  melancholy.  Melancholy  is 
the  foster-mother  of  anger  and  revenge.  Until  1830,  our  statutory 
definition  of  lunatics  was  in  the  terms  "  disorderly  persons  who,  if 
left  at  large,  might  endanger  the  lives  of  others."  Our  laws  now 
regard  them  as  merely  disorderly  and  dangerous,  and  society  ac- 
quiesces, unless  madness  rise  so  high,  that  the  madman  slays  his 
imaginary  enemy,  and  then  he  is  pronounced  sane. 


428  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

The  prisoner  lived  with  Nathaniel  Lynch,  at  the  age  of  eight 
or  nine,  and  labored  occasionally  for  him  during  the  last  winter. 
Lynch  visited  him  in  the  jail,  and  asked  him  if  he  remembered 
him,  and  remembered  living  with  him.  The  prisoner  answered, 
Yes.  Lynch  asked  the  prisoner  whether  he  was  whipped  while 
there,  and  by  whom,  and  why.  From  his  answers,  it  appeared 
that  he  had  been  whipped  by  his  mistress  for  playing  truant,  and 
that  he  climbed  a  rough  board  fence  in  his  night-clothes  and  fled 
to  his  mother.  Upon  this  evidence,  the  learned  professor  from 
Geneva  College,  Dr.  SPENCER,  builds  an  argument  that  the  prisoner 
has  conception,  sensation,  memory,  imagination,  and  association, 
and  is  most  competent  for  the  scaffold.  Now,  here  are  some  • 
verses  to  which  I  would  invite  the  doctor's  attention  : 

"  Shut  up  in  dreary  gloom,  like  convicts  are, 
ID  company  of  murderers  !     Oh,  wretched  fate ! 
If  pity  e'er  extended  through  the  frame, 
Or  sympathy's  sweet  cordial  touched  the  heart, 
Pity  the  wretched  maniac  who  knows  no  blame, 
Absorbed  in  sorrow,  where  darkness,  poverty,  and  every  curse  impart." 

Here  is  evidence  not  merely  of  memory  and  other  faculties,  but 
of  what  we  call  genius.  Yet  these  verses  are  a  sad  effusion  of 
Thomas  Lloyd,  a  man-slaying  maniac  in  Bedlam. 

The  first  question  of  fact  here,  gentlemen,  as  in  every  case 
where  insanity  is  gravely  insisted  upon,  is  this  : 

Is  THE  PRISONER  FEIGNING  OR  COUNTERFEITING  INSANITY  ? 

What  kind  of  man  is  he  ?  A  youth  of  twenty-three,  without 
learning,  education,  or  experience.  Dr.  SPENCER  raises  him  just 
above  the  brute ;  Dr.  BIGELOW  exalts  him  no  higher ;  and  Dr.  DEVION 
thinks  that  he  has  intellectual  capacity  not  exceeding  that  of  a 
child  of  ten  years,  with  the  knowledge  of  one  of  two  or  three. 
These  are  the  people's  witnesses.  All  the  witnesses  concur  in 
these  estimates  of  his  mind. 

Can  you  conceive  of  such  a  creature  comprehending  such  a 
plot,  and  standing  up  in  his  cell  in  the  jail,  hour  after  hour,  day 
after  day,  wreek  after  week,  and  month  after  month,  carrying  on 
such  a  fraud ;  and  all  the  while  pouring  freely  into  the  ears  of 
inquisitors  curious,  inquisitors  friendly,  and  inquisitors  hostile, 
without  discrimination  or  alarm,  or  apparent  hesitation  or  suspi- 
cion, with  "  child-like  simplicity,"  as  our  witnesses  describe  it,  and 
with  "  entire  docility,"  as  it  is  described  by  the  witnesses  for  the 
people,  confessions  of  crime  which,  if  they  fail  to  be  received  as 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  429 

evidences  of  insanity,  must  constitute  an  insurmountable  barrier 
to  his  acquittal  ? 

I  am  ashamed  for  men  who,  without  evidence  of  the  prisoner's 
dissimulation,  and  in  opposition  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all 
the  witnesses,  that  he  is  sincere,  still  think  that  this  poor  fool  may 
deceive  them.  If  he  could  feign,  and  were  feigning,  would  he 
not  want  some  counsel,  some  friend,  if  not  to  advise  and  assist,  at 
least  to  inform  him  of  the  probable  success  of  the  fraud  ?  And 
yet  no  one  of  his  counsel  or  witnesses  has  ever  conversed  with 
him,  but  in  a  crowd  of  adverse  witnesses ;  and  for  myself,  I  have 
not  spoken  with  him  in  almost  two  months,  and  during  the  same 
period  have  never  looked  upon  him  elsewhere  than  here,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Court  and  of  the  multitude. 

Would  a  sane  man  hold  nothing  back  ?  admit  everything  ?  to 
every  body  ?  affect  no  ignorance  ?  no  forgetfulness  ?  no  bewilder- 
ment ?  no  confusion  ?  no  excitement  ?  no  delirium  ? 

Dr.  RAY,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Medical  Jurisprudence  of  Insan- 
ity, (p.  333)  gives  us  very  different  ideas  from  all  this,  of  those 
who  can  feign,  and  of  the  manner  of  counterfeiting  : 

"  A  person  who  has  not  made  the  insane  a  subject  of  study,  cannot  simulate  madness, 
so  as  to  deceive  a  physician- well  acquainted  with  the  disease.  Mr.  HAASLAM  declares 
that  'to  sustain  the  character  of  a  paroxysm  of  active  insanity,  would  require  a  continuity 
of  exertion  beyond  the  power  of  a  sane  person.'  Dr.  COXOLLY  affirms  that  lie  can  hardly 
imagine  a  case  which  would  be  proof  against  an  efficient  system  of  observation. 

"  The  grand  fault  committed  by  impostors  is,  that  they  overdo  the  character  they 
assume. 

"The  really  mad,  except  in  the  acute  stage  of  the  disease,  are,  generally  speaking,  not 
readily  recognized  as  such  by  a  stranger,  and  they  retain  so  much  of  the  rational  as  to 
require  an  effort  to  detect  the  impairment  of  their  faculties. 

•'  Generally  speaking,  afler  the  acute  stage  has  passed  offj  a  maniac  has  no  difficulty  in 
remembering  his  friends  and  acquaintances,  the  places  he  has  been  accustomed  to  fre- 
quent, nnmes,  dates,  and  events,  and  the  occurrences  of  his  life.  The  ordinary  relations 
of  tilings  are,  with  some  exceptions,  as  easily  and  clearly  perceived  as  ever,  and  his  dis- 
crimination of  character  seems  to  be  marked  by  his  usual  shrewdness. 

*         *         *        A  person  simulating  mania  will  frequently  deny  all  knowledge  of 
men  and  things  with  whom  he  has  always  been  familiar." 

And  now,  gentlemen,  I  will  give  you  a  proof  of  the  difference 
between  this  real  science  and  the  empiricism  upon  which  the  coun- 
sel for  the  people  rely,  in  this  cause.  JEAN  PIERRE  was  brought 
before  the  Court  of  Assizes  in  Paris,  in  1824,  accused  of  forgery, 
swindling,  and  incendiarism.  He  feigned  insanity.  A  commis- 
sion of  eminent  physicians  examined  him,  and  detected  his  impos- 
ture by  his  pretended  forgetfulness,  and  confusion  in  answering 
interrogatories  concerning  his  life  and  history.  The  most  promi- 
nent of  these  questions  are  set  down  in  the  books. — Ray,  p.  338.") 
VOL.  1—28. 


430  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

I  submitted  these  questions  and  answers,  with  a  statement  of  JEAN 
PIERRE'S  case  to  Dr.  SPENCER,  and  he,  governed  by  the  rules  which 
have  controlled  him  in  the  present  cause,  pronounced  the  impos- 
tor's answers  to  be  evidence  of  insanity,  because  they  showed  a 
decay  of  memory. 

Again,  gentlemen,  look  at  the  various  catechisms  in  which  this 
prisoner  has  been  exercised  for  two  months,  as  a  test  of  his  sanity. 
Would  any  sane  man  have  propounded  a  solitary  one  of  all  those 
questions  to  any  person  whom  he  believed  to  be  of  sound  mind  ? 
Take  an  instance.  On  one  occasion,  Dr.  WILLARD,  a  witness  for 
the  people,  having  exhausted  the  idiot's  store  of  knowledge  and 
emotion,  expressed  a  wish  to  discover  whether  the  passion  of  fear  had 
burned  out,  and  employing  Mr.  Morgan's  voice,  addressed  the  pris- 
oner thus :  "  Bill,  they're  going  to  take  you  out  to  kill  you.  They're 
going  to  take  you  out  to  kill  you,  Bill."  The  poor  creature  an- 
swered nothing.  "  "What  do  you  think  of  it,  Bill  ?"  Answer  :  "  I 
don't  think  about  it — I  don't  believe  it."  "  Bill,"  continues  the 
inquisitor,  with  louder  and  more  terrific  vociferation,  "they're 
going  to  kill  you,  and  the  doctors  want  your  bones  ;  what  do  you 
think  of  it,  Bill  ?"  The  prisoner  answers :  "  I  don't  think  about  it 
— I  don't  believe  it."  The  Doctor's  case  was  almost  complete,  but 
he  thought  that  perhaps  the  prisoner's  stupidity  might  arise  from 
inability  to  understand  the  question.  Therefore,  lifting  his  voice 
still  higher,  he  continues  :  "  Did  you  ever  see  the  doctors  have  any 
bones  ?  Did  you  ever  see  the  doctors  have  any  bones,  Bill  ?"  The 
fool  answers  :  "  I  have."  "  Then  where  did  you  see  them,  Bill  ?" 
"  In  Dr.  Pitney's  office."  And  thus,  by  this  dialogue,  the  sanity 
of  the  accused  is,  in  the  judgment  of  Dr.  WILLARD,  completely 
established.  It  is  no  matter  that  if  the  prisoner  had  believed  the 
threat,  his  belief  would  have  proved  him  sane  ;  if  he  had  been  ter- 
rified, his  fears  would  have  sent  him  to  the  gallows ;  if  he  had 
forgotten  the  fleshless  skeleton  he  had  seen,  he  would  have  been 
convicted  of  falsehood,  an<J  of  course  have  been  sane.  Of  such 
staple  as  this  are  all  the  questions  which  have  been  put  to  the  pris- 
oner by  all  the  witnesses.  There  is  not  an  interrogatory  which 
any  one  of  you  would  put  to  a  child  twelve  years  old. 

Does  the  prisoner  feign  insanity?  One  hundred  and  eight  wit- 
nesses have  been  examined,  of  whom  seventy-two  appeared  on  be- 
half of  the  people.  No  one  of  them  has  expressed  a  belief  that  he 
was  simulating.  On  the  contrary,  every  witness  to  whom  the 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  431 

inquiry  lias  been  addressed,  answers  that  the  sincerity  of  the  pri- 
soner is  beyond  question. 

Mr.  JOHN  R.  HOPKINS  saya :  "I  -watched  him  sharply  to  discover  any  simulation,  but  I 
couldn't.  There  was  no  deception.  If  there  had  been  I  should  have  detected  it." 

ETHAN  A.  WARDEN,  President  of  the  village  of  Auburn,  with  whom  the  prisoner  had 
the  most  extended  conversation,  says :  "  I  suppose  he  thought  he  spoke  the  truth." 

IKA  CURTIS,  Esq.,  testifies :  "  It  did  occur  to  me  whether  the  prisoner,  with  his  appear- 
ance of  sincerity,  was  attempting  to  play  off  a  game  of  imposture.  The  thought  vanished 
in  a  moment.  There  was  too  much  before  me.  I  have  no  doubt  of  his  sincerity.  I 
don't  believe  it  is  in  the  power  of  all  in  this  room  to  teach  him  to  carry  on  a  piece  of 
deception  for  fifteen  minutes,  because  he  would  forget  what  he  set  about.'' 

Dr.  HERMANCE  says  :  "  He  spoke  with  so  much  sincerity." 

The  Rev.  JOHN  M.  AUSTIN  says :  "  He  did  not  dissemble.  I  should  suppose  him  the 
shrewdest  man  in  the  world  if  he  did  dissemble.  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that 
there  was  no  attempt  to  dissemble." 

The  tenor  of  the  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses  for  the  prisoner, 
learned  and  unlearned,  is  the  same. 

The  witnesses  for  the  people,  learned  and  unlearned,  concur. 

Dr.  BIGELOW  says:  "He  has  betrayed  no  suspicion  of  me.  He  has  manifested  entire 
docility  to  me." 

Dr.  SPENCER  describes  the  manner  of  the  witness  in  giving  all  his  answers,  as  "  entirely 
frank." 

Dr.  CLARY  concludes  the  question  of  sincerity  against  all  doubt.  He  says:  "It  seemed 
to  me  that  lie  either  thought  he  was  reading  or  that  he  meant  to  deceive,  and  I  don't 
think  the  latter,  for  he  always  seemed  to  be  very  frank." 

It  being  thus  absolutely  settled,  gentlemen,  that  the  prisoner 
does  not  simulate  insanity,  I  pass  to  the  second  proposition  in  this 
defence,  which  is,  that 

IT  IS  PROVED  THAT  THE  PKISONEK  IS  CHANGED. 

I  shall  first  ask  you  to  compare  him  now  with  himself  in  the 
earlier  and  happier  period  of  his  life. 

NATHANIEL  HERSEY,  a  witness  for  the  people,  a  colored  man,  knew  the  prisoner  seven 
years  ago,  and  says :  "  He  was  a  lively,  smart  boy,  laughed,  played,  and  was  good-natured  ; 
understood  as  well  as  any  body;  could  tell  a  story  right  off;  talked  like  other  folks." 

This  is  the  testimony  of  an  associate  of  the  prisoner  at  the  age 
of  sixteen. 

JOHN  DEPUY  is  a  brother-in-law  of  the  accused,  and  has  known  him  more  than  twelve 
years.  This  witness  says :  the  prisoner  "  was  an  active,  smart  boy,  lively  as  any  other 
you  could  find,  a  good  boy  to  work;  set  him  to  work  any  where  and  he  would  do  it; 
sociable  and  understood  himself,  and  had  some  learning ;  could  read  in  the  spc-lling  book 
pretty  well ;  could  read  off  simple  reading  lessons  in  the  spelling  book,  smooth  and 
decent." 

DAVID  WINNER,  a  colored  man,  was  the  friend  and  companion  of  the  parents  of  the 
prisoner.  He  says :  "  When  this  boy  was  twelve  or  thirteen  years  old,  he  was  a  pretty 
sprightly  lad,  sensible,  very  lively.  I  saw  no  difference  between  him  and  any  other  boy 
of  sense,  at  that  time." 

NATHANIEL  LYNCH,  a  witness  for  the  people,  in  whose  house  the  prisoner  was  an  inmate 
at  the  age  of  eight  years,  says:  "He  was  a  lively,  playful  boy,  almost  always  smiling 
and  laughing,  and  appeared  to  be  a  lively,  laughing,  playful  boy." 

DANIEL  ANDRUS,  a  witness  for  the  people,  testifies  that  he  employed  the  prisoner  eight 
years  ago,  and  talked  with  him  then  as  he  would  with  any  other  laboring  inau. 


FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

MARY  ANN  NEWARK  has  known  the  prisoner  from  childhood,  and  says :  "  He  was  a 
lively,  smart  boy." 

Honest  ADAM  GRAY  was  a  friend  of  the  prisoner's  parents,  and  says :  "  He  was  a  smart 
boy,  was  very  active ;  always  thought  him  a  pretty  cunning  kind  of  a  boy." 

Dr.  BRIGGS  knew  him  twelve  years  ago,  as  "a  lad  of  ordinary  intelligence  for  boys  of 
his  condition." 

ROBERT  FREEMAN  was  a  fellow  servant  with  the  prisoner,  at  the  American  Hotel,  eight 
years  ago,  and  though  he  never  entered  into  any  argument  with  the  prisoner  to  find  out 
his  mother-wit,  he  says :  "  He  was  playful  betimes,  seemed  to  understand  every  thing, 
and  very  active.1' 

Dr.  VAN  EPPS  knew  the  prisoner  in  his  early  infancy,  and  says :  "  He  then  appeared 
as  bright  and  intelligent  as  children  generally  are  at  that  age." 

THOMAS  F.  MONROE,  a  witness  fur  the  people,  certainly  not  partial  to  the  prisoner, 
says :  '•  lu  his  youth  he  was  quick  and  active,  and  not  much  different  from  other  black 
boys," 

A.  A.  VANDERHEYDEN,  a  witness  for  the  people,  represents  the  prisoner  as  "active  and 
intelligent''  in  his  youth. 

ARETAS  A.  SABIN,  a  witness  for  the  people,  knew  the  prisoner  fifteen  or  sixteen  years 
ago,  and  says  that  he  was  no  more  or  less  playful  than  other  boys,  and  that  he  wept  on 
entering  the  State  Prison  at  the  age  of  sixteen. 

JEFFEKSON  WELLINGTON,  a  hostile  witness,  testifies  that  the  prisoner  was  sociable  and 
talked  freely  upon  general  subjects  at  the  age  of  sixteen. 

LEWIS  MAEKHAM  has  known  the  prisoner  from  childhood,  and  declares  that  "he  was 
a  smart  boy,  pretty  actice,  quick,  sprightly,  shrewd,  attentive  and  faithful,  without  any 
lack  of  conversational  powers." 

ETHAN  A.  WARDEN  received  the  prisoner  into  his  family  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  ago, 
"  as  a  bright  boy,  and  took  him  for  the  reason  that  he  was  so,''  and  now  declares  that 
"  he  was  then  a  lad  of  good  understanding,  and  of  kind  and  gentle  disposition." 

SALLY  FREEMAN,  the  prisoner's  mother,  gives  this  simple  account  of  him:  "  When  he 
was  young  he  was  a  very  smart  child,  before  he  went  to  the  State  Prison.  He  was  al- 
ways very  playful  and  good-natured.  About  understanding  things  he  was  the  same  as 
other  children." 

Finally,  DEBORAH  DEPUY,  who  is  of  the  same  age  with  the  prisoner,  of  the  same 
caste,  and  moves  in  the  same  humble  sphere,  testifies  that  she  "  knew  him  before  lie 
went  to  the  State  Prison,  in  childhood  and  youth ;"  that  "his  manners,  action,  and 
mind  were  very  good — as  good  as  other  boys ;"  that  she  "  associated  with  him ;  he  was 
as  bright  as  any  body  else ;  he  was  very  cheerful ;"  she  had  "  been  with  him  to  balls  and 
rides :  he  acted  very  smart  on  such  occasions ;"  she  had  "  talked  with  him  often,  and 
never  discovered  any  lack  of  intelligence." 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  a  complete  picture  of  the  childhood  and 
youth  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Its  truthfulness  and  fidelity 
are  unquestioned,  for  all  the  witnesses  on  both  sides  have  drawn 
it  for  you. 

Look  on  that  picture  and  then  on  the  one  I  shall  now  present, 
and,  since  I  must  speak  of  a  class  lowly  and  despised, 

"  Let  not  ambition  mock  their  useful  toil, 
Their  humble  joys  and  destiny  obscure : 
Nor  grandeur  hear  with  a  disdainful  smile 
The  short  and  simple  annals  of  the  poor." 

You  have  seen  that  the  prisoner  wept,  as  well  he  might,  when 
he  entered  the  State  Prison  at  the  age  of  sixteen.  It  was  the 
last  manifestation  he  has  ever  given  of  a  rational  mind. 

KTHAN  A.  WARDEN  says  :  "  I  saw  the  prisoner  in  the  State  Prison.  He  appeared 
stupid  and  different  from  what  he  used  to  be,  and  from  what  I  expected  he  would  be.  I 
cannot  describe  the  difference;  it  was  so  peculiar.  I  said  to  him,  'Bill,  are  you  beie?' 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  '  433 

and  repeated  the  question  two  or  three  times  ;  at  first  he  did  not  understand,  but  at  last 
sain,  •  Yes.'  He  appeared  changed." 

JOHN  DEPUY  saw  the  prisoner  in  the  State  Prison  at  five  different  times,  but  was  not 
allowed  to  speak  with  him.  Depuy  says  the  prisoner  "  was  carrying  something  on  his 
back  like  a  knapsack,  and  walking  back  and  forth  in  the  yard.  He  did  not  appear  as 
he  did  before  he  went  to  prison.  He  appeared  stupid,  took  no  notice  of  anything.  He 
did  not  know  me,  and  took  no  notice  of  me.  I  saw  him  at  other  times  when  at  work 
and  when  idle,  and  then  thought  there  was  something  the  matter  with  him.  I  thought 
he  was  not  in  his  right  mind." 

WILLIAM  P.  SMITH  was  ^  foreman  of  one  of  the  shops  in  the  State  Prison  during  the 
third  year  of  the  prisoner's  confinement  there,  and  had  charge  of  him.  He  describes 
him  as  "  passionate,  sullen,  and  stupid."  This  witness  relates  that  the  prisoner  had  oiled 
his  shoes  neatly  and  set  them  upon  a  wood  pile,  that  a  convict  accidentally  disturbed  the 
shoes,  and  that  the  prisoner  struck  the  convict  with  a  billet  of  wood  with  great  violence, 
for  which  offence  he  was  punished;  that  at  another  time,  with  as  little  provocation,  he 
attacked  another  convict  with  great  fury  for  displacing  some  yarn  on  a  reel.  The  wit- 
ness says  :  "  When  I  sent  him  on  an  errand,  he  required  repeated  and  very  particular 
instructions.  I  considered  his  intellect  at  the  time  very  low  indeed.  He  knew  very 
little,  not  much  more  than  a  brute  or  beast." 

TIIERON  R.  GREEN,  who  was  a  keeper  in  the  prison  and  had  charge  of  the  prisoner, 
declares  that  he  "had  very  little  mind,  was  a  half-day  man,  was  slow,  awkward,  dull, 
downcast,  and  would  have  frequent  freaks  of  laughing,  without  any  observable  cause  of 
laughter."  The  witness  tried  to  instruct  him  in  his  cell  on  Sundays,  but  lie  could  learn 
nothing."  Mr.  Green  says  :  "He  was  irritable,  malicious,  and  of  bad  temper ;  often  vio- 
lated rules,  for  which  I  did  not  punish  him,  because  I  thought  him  irresponsible.  I  think 
that  he  had  as  much  capacity  as  a  brute  beast.  I  don't  know  as  lie  had  more.  If  more, 
there  was  none  to  spare.  I  remarked  when  he  left  the  shop,  that  he  ought  not  to  go  at 
large." 

HORACE  HOTCHKISS  was  a  teacher  in  the  Sunday  School  at  the  State  Prison,  and  says 
that  the  prisoner  "  was  dismissed  from  the  school  because  he  could  not  be  taught  to 
read." 

Sucli  is  the  imperfect  history  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  while 
he  was  shut  up  from  the  observation  of  men,  and  deprived  by 
the  discipline  of  the  State  Prison  of  the  use  of  speech  and  of  the 
privilege  of  complaint. 

He  was  discharged  from  prison  on  the  twentieth  of  last  Sep- 
tember. 

ALOXZO  WOOD,  the  new  chaplain  of  the  State  Prison,  visited  him  in  his  cell  there 
twice  during  the  last  month  of  his  confinement,  and  asked  him  questions,  which  the  pri- 
soner noticed  only  by  inclining  his  head-  The  chaplain  expressed  a  hope  to  him  on  the 
day  of  his  discharge  that  he  might  be  able  to  keep  out  of  prison  thereafter,  and  inquired 
whether  he  wanted  a  Bible."  I  understood  him  to  say,"  says  the  witness,  "  that  it  would 
be  of  no  use — that  he  couldn't  read."  At  the  Clerk's  office  he  received  the  usual  gratuity 
of  two  dollars,  for  which  he  was  required  to  sign  a  voucher.  He  answered,  "  I  have 
been  in  prison  five  years  unjustly,  and  ain't  going  to  settle  so." 

The  officers,  including  the  reverend  chaplain,  laughed  heartily 
at  what  they  thought  gross  ignorance. 

The  prisoner's  faithful  brother-in-law,  JOHN  DEPUY,  was  wait- 
ing in  the  hall  to  conduct  him  homeward.  His  narrative  is  sim- 
ple and  affecting.  "  I  sat  down,"  says  Depuy,  "  on  the  long 
chair  in  the  hall.  He  came  out  and  passed  me  as  if  he  didn't 
know  me.  I  went  up  and  touched  him,  and  asked  him  if  he 
knew  me,  and  he  kind  o'  laughed.  We  came  along  to  Apple- 


434:  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

gate's,  where  I  stopped  to  assist  to  raise  a  new  building.  lie  sat 
down  on  a  pile  of  boards.  He  sat  there  and  acted  very  stupid 
and  dull  and  said  nothing.  They  asked  me  what  damned  fool  I 
had  with  me  sitting  there  ? 

"  He  didn't  know  the  value  of  his  money.  lie  had  received 
four  half  dollars,  and  thought  they  were  quarters.  We  went  to 
the  hatter's  for  a  cap — found  one  worth  half  a  dollar ;  he  threw 
down  two  halves.  I  handed  one  back  to  him,  and  told  him  to 
come  out.  After  he  came  out,  he  insisted  that  he  had  paid  only 
half  enough  for  the  cap,  and  that  they  would  make  a  fuss  about 
it."  All  the  leisure  hours  of  that  day  and  the  next  were  spent 
by  the  prisoner,  according  to  DEPUY'S  account,  in  giving  relations 
of  the  injustice  and  cruelty  he  had  suffered  in  the  prison.  He  was 
very  deaf,  and  assigned  as  the  cause  of  it,  that  Tyler,  one  of  the 
keepers  in  the  prison,  had  struck  him  across  the  ears  with  a  board, 
and  had  knocked  his  hearing  off  so  he  couldn't  hear,  and  his  hear- 
ing had  never  come  back.  "  I  asked  him,"  says  the  witness,  "  if 
they  had  done  anything  for  his  deafness.  He  said,  '  Yes,  they 
put  salt  in  my  ear,  but  it  didn't  do  any  good,  for  my  hearing  was 
gone  and  all  knocked  off.' '' 

Again.  The  prisoner  told  DEPUT  that  while  eating,  he  had 
broken  his  dinner  knife  in  the  prison,  and  the  keepers  had  threat- 
ened to  put  him  back  five  years  for  that ;  and  says  DEPUY,  '•  he 
asked  me  if  they  could  do  it."  He  complained  to  DEPUY,  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  see  hereafter,  that  he  had  been  wrongfully 
imprisoned,  and  wanted  to  find  the  people  who  had  done  him  such 
injustice,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  pay  from  them. 

Such  was  the  change  which  had  come  over  the  prisoner.  The 
bright,  lively,  social,  active  youth  of  sixteen,  had  become  a  drivel- 
ling, simple  fool. 

The  prisoner  remained  with  DEPUY  some  two  or  three  months. 
He  asked  for  esquires,  to  get  warrants  for  the  people  who  put  him 
in  the  state  prison ;  at  one  time  said  the  justices  refused  to  give 
him  warrants ;  at  another  time,  that  "  he  had  got  it  all  fixed,"  and 
he  wanted  DEPUY  to  go  down  and  see  that  he  got  his  pay  right ; 
at  another,  said  that  "  he  couldn't  do  nothing  with  them — they 
cheated  him  all  the  time,  and  he  couldn't  live  so."  He  followed 
DEPUY  seven  miles,  to  Skaneateles,  and  brought  him  back  to  Au- 
burn, to  help  the  prisoner  in  a  dispute  with  Mr.  Conklin,  the 
harness-maker,  about  sawing  some  wood,  for  which  he  claimed 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  435 

thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents,  and  Conklin  refused  to  pay  him 
more  than  twenty-five  cents.  DEPUY,  dealing  with  the  prisoner 
as  Dr.  BRIGHAM  would,  made  peace  by  paying  him  the  difference, 
and  settled  in  the  same  way  a  difference  between  the  prisoner  and 
Mr.  Murfey,  the  merchant. 

The  prisoner's  mind  was  very  unsteady  during  the  winter.  DE- 
PUY  continues :  "  He  did  not  know  half  the  time  what  he  was 
doing;  he  would  go  up  the  street,  and  then  turn  and  run  violently 
in  the  other  direction.  He  never  commenced  any  conversation 
with  any  body,  never  asked  a  question ;  smiled  without  cause  ;  got 
up  out  of  his  bed  at  night  many  times,  sometimes  two  or  three 
times  in  the  same  night,  and  on  such  occasions  would  sing  irregu- 
larly, dance  and  spar,  as  if  with  a  combatant ;  saying  sometimes  : 
'  By  God  !  I'll  see  you  out ;'  sometimes  he  would  take  a  book  and 
mumble  words  as  if  reading,  but  there  was  no  sense  in  the  words. 
When  asked  afterward  what  he  got  up  nights  for,  he  answered 
that  he  didn't  know."  The  prisoner  never  talked  with  anybody 
after  comipg  out  of  prison,  unless  to  answer,  in  the  simplest  way, 
questions  put  to  him. 

Many  persons  remember  the  negro,  with  his  saw,  deaf,  sad  and 
sullen,  seeking  occupation  about  the  wood-yards,  during  the  half- 
year  of  his  enlargement.  Few  stopped  to  converse  with  him,  but 
the  report  of  all  confirms  what  has  been  testified  by  DEPUY.  Those 
who  knew  the  prisoner  at  all,  were  chiefly  persons  of  his  own 
caste. 

MARY  ANN  NEWARK  says  that  she  saw  him  after  he  came  out  of  prison,  and  he  resided 
with  her  several  days  before  the  homicide.  He  did  not  recognize  her  in  the  street.  "  He 
sat  still  and  silent  when  in  the  house,  asked  no  questions,  and  answered  quick  and  short- 
like.  His  manner  of  acting  was  queer-like ;  he  never  mentioned  any  name  or  spoke  of 
anybody." 

NATHANIEL  HERSE^,  the  prisoner's  old  friend,  found  him  changed,  had  to  speak  loud 
to  him ;  "  he  appeared  to  be  quite  stupid."  HERSEY  asked  him  what  ailed  him ;  "  he 
said  he  was  deaf,  that  they  rapped  him  over  the  head  at  the  prison." 

ROBERT  FREEMAN  discovered  that  he  appeared  downcast  when  he  first  came  out  of 
prison.  He  spoke  to  the  prisoner,  who  took  no  notice.  Robert  took  hold  of  his  hand 
and  asked  him  how  he  did.  The  witness  says,  "  He  appeared  more  dull  and  downcast, 
and  I  could  not  tell  what  the  matter  was;  could  never  establish  any  communication  with 
him." 

Old  ADAM  GRAY,  who  knew  him  as  a  "  pretty  cunning  kind  of  a  boy,"  testifies :  " 
think  there  is  a  change  in  him.  It  doesn't  seem  to  me  thut  he  knows  as  much  as  he  did 
before  he  went  to  prison.  He  doesn't  seem  to  talk  as  much,  to  have  so  much  life, 
nor  does  he  seem  so  sensible.  Last  winter  he  boarded  with  me  two  months.  He  would 
get  up  nights,  take  his  saw  and  go  out  as  if  he  was  going  to  work,  and  come  back  again 
and  go  to  bed.  On  such  occasions  he  would  try  to  sing,  but  I  couldn't  understand  what 
lie  said.  He  made  a  noise  appearing  as  if  he  was  dancing." 

Some  three  weeks  before  the  homicide,  the  prisoner  was  board- 
ing at  Laura  Willard's.  The  truthful  and  simple-minded  DAVU> 


436  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

WINNER,  seems  to  have  been  led  by  Providence  to  visit  the  house 
at  that  time.     He  says — 

*  I  saw  him  first  at  his  uncle,  Luke  Freeman's.  He  then  appeared  to  be  A  foolish  man. 
I  asked  if  that  was  Sally's  son.  I  did  not  know  him.  They  told  me  it  was.  I  said,  lie 
is  very  much  altered.  They  said,  he  had  just  come  out  of  State  Prison.  He  had  altered 
very  much  in  his  looks  and  behavior.  He  was  sitting  down  in  a  chair  in  the  corner,  sniv- 
eling, snickering  and  laughing,  and  having  a  kind  of  simple  look.  I  spoke  to  him ;  he 
didn't  speak  ;  1  saw  nothing  for  him  to  laugh  at.  I  staid  three  days  and  three  nights  at 
Laura  Willard's,  and  slept  with  William  in  the  same  bed.  At  night  he  got  up  and 
talked  to  himself;  I  couldn't  understand  what  he  said.  He  appeared  to  be  foolish.  I 
gave  him  a  dollar  to  go  down  to  Bartlett's  to  get  a  quarter  of  a  pound  of  tea  and  two 
pounds  of  sugar,  and  to  the  market  and  get  a  beefsteak.  He  went  to  market  and  got 
it  all  in  beef  steak.  He  got  a  dollar's  worth  of  beef  steak.  When  I  asked  what  that 
was  for,  he  said  nothing,  but  laughed  at  me.  He  got  up  nights  two  or  three  times,  and  1 
felt  cold  and  told  Laura  I  wouldn't  sleep  with  him  any  more,  and  I  went  and  slept  in  the 
other  room.  I  got  afraid  of  him,  and  I  wouldn't  sleep  with  him  any  more.  •  He  sung 
when  he  got  up  nights,  but  you  couldn't  understand  what  he  sung.  There  was  no  mean- 
ing in  what  he  sung." 

DEBOUAH  DEPUY  says,  "  After  he  came  out  of  prison,  there  was  a  change.  If  I  talked 
to  him  very  loud  he  would  talk,  say  very  little  only  to  answer  me.  He  didn't  act  cheer- 
ful, but  very  stupid  ;  never  said  anything  until  I  talked  to  him.  He  never  talked  to  me 
as  he  did  before  he  went  to  prison.  He  had  a  strange  smile.  He  would  laugh  very 
hearty  without  anything  to  laugh  at.  He  would'nt  know  what  he  was  laughing  at  He 
would  knock  at  the  door,  and  1  would  let  him  in,  and  he  would  sit  down  and  laugh.  I 
would  a.sk  what  he  was  laughing  at ;  he  said  he  didn't  know.  When  I  asked  questions, 
he  would  either  answer  yes,  or  no,  or  don't  know.  I  asked  him  how  his  hearing  was  hurt 
He  said  they  struck  him  on  the  head  with  a  board,  and  it  seemed  as  if  flie  sound  went 
down  his  throat  I  have  asked  him  why  he  was  so  stupid.  I  don't  think  he  is  in  his  right 
mind  now,  nor  that  he  has  been  since  he  came  out.  The  reason  is  that  he  never  used  to 
act  so  siliy.  and  sit  and  laugh  so,  before  he  went  to  prison." 

His  mother,  SALLY  FREEMAX,  describes  the  change  which  had  come  over  her  child,  in 
language  simple  and  touching :  "  I  never  knew  he  was  foolish  or  dumpish  before  he 
went  to  prison.  After  he  came  out  of  prison,  he  didn't  act  like  the  same  child.  He  was 
changed  and  didn't  appear  to  know  anything.  As  to  being  lively  after  he  came  out,  I 
didn't  see  any  cheerfulness  about  him.  He  was  either  sitting  or  standing  when  I  after- 
wards saw  him,  and  when  I  asked  him  a  question  he  would  answer,  but  that  is  all  he 
would  say.  He  appeared  very  dull.  He  never  asked  me  anv  questions  after  he  came 
out,  only  the  first  time  he  saw  me  he  asked  me  if  I  was  well.  From  that  time  to  this  he 
has  never  asked  me  a  question  at  all  He  didn't  come  to  see  me  more  than  half  a  dozen 
timos.  "When  he  came,  perhaps  he  would  ask  me  how  I  did,  and  then  sit  down  and 
laugh.  What  he  laughed  at  was  more  than  I  could  tell.  He  laughed  as  he  does  now. 
There  was  no  reason  why  he  should  laugh.  He  was  laughing  to  himself.  He  didn't 
speak  of  anything  when  he  laughed.  I  never  inquired  what  he  laughed  at.  I  didn't 
think  he  was  hardly  right,  and  he  was  so  deaf  I  didn't  want  to.  I  asked  him  how  he  got 
deaf,  and  he  told  me  his  ear  had  fell  down,  or  some  such  foolish  answer  he  gave  me. 
He  would  stay  an  hour  or  so.  He  generally  sat  still.  I  went  to  see  him  in  the  jail  after 
he  killed  the  Van  Nest  family,  on  the  first  day  of  the  trial.  He  laughed  when  I  went 
in,  and  said  he  was  well.  I  talked  to  him.  I  asked  him  if  he  knew  what  he  had  been 
doing.  He  stood  and  laughed.  I  asked  him  how  he  came  there.  He  didn't  say  much 
of  anything,  but  stood  and  laughed.  When  I  went  away  he  didn't  bid  me  good-bye  nor 
ask  me  to  come  again.  I  have  never  been  to  see  him  since,  and  have  never  received  any 
message  from  him  of  any  kind  since  he  has  been  in  jail.  I  don't  know  that  he  noticed  me 
when  I  was  on  examination  before.  I  don't  think  he  is  in  his  right  mind,  or  that  he  has 
been  since  became  out  of  prison.  The  reason  is  that  he  acts  very  foolish,  and  don't  seem 
as  though  he  had  any  senses." 

You  will  remember  that  we  have  seen  the  prisoner  a  smart, 
bright,  lively,  cheerful,  and  playful  youth,  attending  Deborah 
Depuy  at  balls,  parties,  and  rides  ;  for  negroes  enjoy  such  festivi- 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  437 

ties  as  much  and  even  more  than  white  men.  Deborah  says  he 
no  longer  attends.  But  from  the  testimony  of  JOHN  DEPUY  we 
find  him  at  a  dance  in  the  house  of  Laura  Willard,  on  the  ni^ht 

'  D 

before  the  slaughter  of  the  Van  ]STest  family.  The  scene  was  the 
same  as  before.  There  was  music,  and  gallantry,  and  revelry,  and 
merriment,  and  laughing,  and  dancing.  But  while  all  others  were 
thus  occupied,  where  was  the  prisoner,  and  how  was  he  engaged  ? 
Pie  was  leaning  against  the  wall,  sullen,  gloomy,  silent,  morose; 
pressing  with  his  hand  the  knife  concealed  in  his  bosom,  and  wait- 
ing his  opportunity  to  strike  to  the  heart  his  brother-in-law  and 
benefactor. 

This  is  the  change  which  had  come  over  the  prisoner  when  he 
emerged  from  the  State  Prison,  as  observed  by  the  few  of  his  kin- 
dred and  caste,  who  had  known  him  intimately  before.  How 
many  white  men,  who  knew  him  in  his  better  days,  have  we  heard 
confirm  this  testimony,  by  saying  that  they  lost  sight  of  him  when 
he  went  to  prison ;  that  they  met  him  in  the  street  afterwards, 
downcast  and  sullen,  with  his  saw  in  his  hand,  seeking  casual 
occupation  ;  that  they  spoke  to  him,  but  he  did  not  hear  or  did 
not  answer,  and  they  passed  on !  Only  two  or  three  such  persons 
stopped  to  inquire  concerning  his  misfortunes,  or  to  sympathize 
with  him. 

WILLIAM  P.  SMITH  says :  "  The  first  time  I  saw  him  after  he  came  out  of  prison,  was 
in  November.  I  asked  him  how  he  did.  He  made  no  answer.  A  little  black  boy  with 
him  told  me  he  was  deaf.  I  spoke  to  him  to  try  and  induce  conversation,  and  finally  gave 
it  up;  I  couldn't  make  him  understand.  He  appeared  different  from  what  I  had  known 
him  before;  appeared  dumpish;  didn't  say  much,  and  seemed  to  stand  around.  I  met 
him  once  or  twice  in  the  street — merely  met  him — he  noticed  nothing." 

DOCTOR  HEUMANCE  did  not  know  him  before  he  went  to  prison.  His  peculiarities  at- 
tracted the  Doctor's  attention,  and  he  inquired  the  cause.  The  prisoner  answered  that  he 
had  been  five  years  in  the  State  Prison,  and  he  wasn't  guilty,  and  they  wouldn't  pay  him. 
The  Doctor  says :  "  I  discovered  that  he  was  very  deaf,  and  inquired  the  cause  of  his 
deafness.  He  stated  that  his  ears  dropped.  I  thought  his  manners  very  singular  and 
strange ;  and  what  he  said  about  pay  very  singular  and  strange.  He  spoke  in  a  very 
gloomy,  despondent  state  of  mind.  There  appeared  to  be  a  sincerity  in  his  manner. 
The  tone  of  his  voice  was  a  dull  and  monotonous  tone.  I  thought  at  the  time  that  he 
was  deranged." 

To  complete  this  demonstration  of  the  change,  I  have  only  to 
give  you  the  character  of  the  negro  now,  as  he  is  described  by 
several  of  the  witnesses,  as  well  on  the  part  of  the  people  as  of 
the  prisoner,  who  have  seen  him  in  prison,  and  as  he  is  admitted 
to  be. 

WARREX  T.  WORDEN,  Esq.,  an  astute  and  experienced  member  of  the  bar,  visited  him 
in  his  cell  in  the  jail,  and  says  :  "  I  formed  an  opinion  then,  that  he  knew  nothing,  and  I 
expressed  it.  I  do  not  believe  him  sane.  I  don't  believe  he  understands  what  is  going 
on  around  him.  He  would  laugh  upon  the  gallows  as  readily  and  as  freely  as  he  did  iu 


438  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

his  cell.  He  would  probably  know  as  much  as  a  dumb  beast  who  was  taken  to  the 
slaughter  house,  as  to  what  was  to  be  done  with  him.  If  that  state  of  mind  and  know- 
ledge constitute  insanity,  then  he  is  insane." 

DOCTOR  FOSGATE,  one  of  the  soundest  and  most  enlightened  men  in  our  community, 
who  was  his  physician  in  the  jail,  and  dressed  his  wounded  hand,  describes  him  as  "  in- 
sensible to  paiu,  ignorant  of  his  condition,  and  of  course  indifferent  to  his  fate ;  grinning 
constantly  idiotic  smiles,  without  any  perceptible  cause,  and  rapidly  sinking  into  idiocy." 

IRA  CCRTIS,  who  knew  him  in  his  youth,  and  has  now  carefully  examined  him  in  the 
jail,  says :  li  He  is  incapable  of  understanding  ;  he  is  part  fool,  bordering  on  idiocy ;  crazy 
and  an  idiot  both,  and  crazy  and  insane  both.  If  all  the  doctors  in  the  world  should 
say  he  was  not  a  fool,  I  shouldn't  believe  them." 

DOCTOR  BRIGGS,  who,  it  will  be  recollected,  knew  him  at  the  age  of  eight  or  nine,  examined 
him  in  the  jail  and  says :  ''  my  opinion  is  and  was,  that  he  has  less  mind  than  when  I 
knew  him  before — that  his  mind  has  become  impaired." 

WILLIAM  P.  SMITH,  who  knew  him  before  he  went  to  the  State  Prison  and  while  there, 
patiently  examined  him  in  the  jail,  and  says :  "  There  was  a  change,  a  sensible  change  in 
the  man.  He  didn't  appear  to  know  as  much,  to  have  as  many  ideas  about  him,  as  many 
looks  of  intelligence.  I  don't  know  as  I  could  describe  it  very  well.  There  was  a  slow- 
ness, a  dullness ;  I  thought  what  little  intellect  he  had  seemed  to  sink  lower  down,  from 
some  cause  or  other.  His  physical  strength  and  vigor  were  good  in  the  prison.  He  ap- 
peared active,  strong  and  energetic.  Now,  his  manner  appears  more  dull,  stupid  and 
inattentive." 

Dr.  VAN  EPPS  says :  "  Now  he  appears  to  have  the  intellect  of  a  child  five  years  old." 

ETHAN  A.  WARDEN,  the  prisoner's  earliest  and  fastest  friend,  says :  "  I  look  at  him  now 
and  when  he  lived  with  me.  He  appears  different  I  could  not  get  any  thing  that  ap- 
peared like  sorrow  for  what  he  had  done,  or  feeling  for  the  crime.  I  don't  think  him 
much  above  a  brute." 

JOHN  R.  HOPKINS  says :  "  I  think  him  in  intelligence  but  little  above  the  brute." 

I  need  not  pursue  the  parallel  further.  There  is  no  dispute  as 
to  his  present  ignorance  and  debasement. 

Dr.  DIMON,  a  witness  for  the  people,  although  he  pronounces  the  prisoner  sane,  says  he 
should  think  "  he  has  not  as  much  intellect  as  a  child  of  fourteen  years  of  age ;  is  in  some 
respects  hardly  equal  to  a  child  of  three  or  four,"  and  in  regard  to  knowledge  compares 
him  with  "  a  child  two  or  three  years  old,  who  knows  his  A,  B,  C,  and  can't  count  twenty- 
eight." 

DR.  BIGELOW,  a  leading  witness  for  the  people,  declares :  "  I  believe  him  to  be  a  dull, 
stupid,  moody,  morose,  depraved,  degraded  negro,  but  not  insane ;''  and  Dr.  SPENCER, 
swearing  to  the  same  conclusion,  says  :  "  He  is  but  little  above  the  brute,  yet  not  insane." 

I  submit  to  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  that  by  comparing  the 
prisoner  with  himself,  as  he  was  in  his  earlier,  and  as  he  is  in  his 
later  history,  I  have  proved  to  you  conclusively  that  he  is  visibly 
changed  and  altered  in  mind,  manner,  conversation  and  action, 
and  that  all  his  faculties  have  become  disturbed,  impaired,  de- 
graded and  debased.  I  submit  also  that  it  is  proved :  first,  that 
this  change  occurred  between  the  sixteenth  and  the  eighteenth 

O  o 

years  of  his  life,  in  the  State  Prison,  and  that  therefore  the  change 
thus  palpable,  was  not,  as  the  Attorney  General  contends,  effected 
by  mere  lapse  of  time  and  increase  of  years,  nor  by  the  natural 
development  of  latent  dispositions :  Secondly,  that  inasmuch  as 
the  convicts  in  the  State  Prison  are  absolutely  abstemious  from  in- 
toxicating drinks,  the  change  was  not,  as  the  Attorney  General 
supposes,  produced  by  intemperance. 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  439 

I  have  thus  arrived  at  the  third  proposition  in  this  case,  which 
is,  that 

THE  PRISONER  AT  THE  BAR  is  INSANE. 

This  I  shall  demonstrate,  first,  by  the  fact  already  so  fully 
established,  that  the  prisoner  is  changed ;  /Secondly,  by  referring 
to  the  predisposing  causes  which  might  be  expected  to  produce 
insanity ;  Thirdly,  by  the  incoherence  and  extravagance  of  the 
prisoner's  conduct  and  conversation,  and  the  delusions  under  which 
he  has  labored. 

And  now  as  to  predisposing  causes.  The  prisoner  was  born  in 
this  village,  twenty-three  years  ago,  of  parents  recently  emerged 
from  slavery.  His  mother  was  a  woman  of  violent  passions,  severe 
discipline,  and  addicted  to  intemperance.  His  father  died  of 
delirium  tremens,  leaving  his  children  to  the  neglect  of  the  world, 
from  which  he  had  learned  nothing  but  its  vices. 

Hereditary  insanity  was  added  to  the  prisoner's  misfortunes, 
already  sufficiently  complicated.  His  aunt,  Jane  Brown,  died  a 
lunatic.  His  uncle,  Sidney  Freeman,  is  an  acknowledged  lunatic. 

All  writers  agree,  what  it  needs  not  writers  should  teach,  that 
neglect  of  education  is  a  fruitful  cause  of  insanity.  If  neglect  of 
education  produces  crime,  it  equally  produces  insanity.  Here  was 
a  bright,  cheerful,  happy  child,  destined  to  become  a  member  of 
the  social  state,  entitled  by  the  principles  of  our  government  to 
equal  advantages  for  perfecting  himself  in  intelligence,  and  even 
in  political  rights,  with  each  of  the  three  millions  of  our  citizens, 
and  blessed  by  our  religion  with  equal  hopes.  Without  his  being 
taught  to  read,  his  mother,  who  lives  by  menial  service,  sends  him 
forth  at  the  age  of  eight  or  nine  years  to  like  employment.  Re- 
proaches are  cast  on  his  mother,  on  Mr.  Warden,  and  on  Mr.  Lynch, 
for  not  sending  him  to  school,  but  these  reproaches  are  all  unjust. 
How  could  she,  poor  degraded  negress  and  Indian  as  she  was,  send 
her  child  to  school  ?  And  where  wTas  the  school  to  which  Warden 
and  Lynch  should  have  sent  him  ?  There  was  no  school  for  him. 
His  few  and  wretched  years  date  back  to  the  beginning  of  my  ac- 
quaintance here,  and  during  all  that  time,  with  unimportant  ex- 
ceptions, there  has  been  no  school  here  for  children  of  his  caste. 
A  school  for  colored  children  was  never  established  here,  and  all 
the  common  schools  were  closed  against  them.  Money  would 
always  procure  instruction  for  my  children,  and  relieve  me  from 
the  responsibility.  But  the  colored  children,  who  have  from  time 


440  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

to  time  been  confided  to  my  charge,  have  been  cast  upon  my  own 
care  for  education.  When  I  sent  them  to  school  with  my  own 
children,  they  were  sent  back  to  me  with  a  message  that  they 
must  be  withdrawn  because  they  were  black,  or  the  school  would 
cease.  Here  are  the  fruits  of  this  unmanly  and  criminal  prejudice. 
A  whole  family  is  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  usefulness  and  honors 
by  the  hand  of  an  assassin.  You  may  avenge  the  crime,  but 
whether  the  prisoner  be  insane  or  criminal,  there  is  a  tribunal 
where  this  neglect  will  plead  powerfully  in  his  excuse,  and  trumpet- 
tongued  against  the  "  deep  damnation  "  of  his  "  taking  off/' 

Again.  The  prisoner  was  subjected,  in  tender  years,  to  severe 
and  undeserved  oppression.  "Whipped  at  Lynch's ;  severely  and 
unlawfully  beaten  by  Wellington,  for  the  venial  offence  of  forget- 
ting to  return  a  borrowed  umbrella ;  hunted  by  the  police  on 
charges  of  petty  offences,  of  which  he  was  proved  innocent ;  finally, 
convicted,  upon  constructive  and  probably  perjured  evidence,  of 
a  crime  of  which  it  is  now  universally  admitted  he  was  guiltless, 
he  was  plunged  into  the  state  prison  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  instead 
of  being  committed  to  a  house  of  refuge. 

Mere  imprisonment  is  often  a  cause  of  insanity.  Four  insane 
pei-sons  have,  on  this  trial,  been  mentioned  as  residing  among  us, 
all  of  whom  became  insane  in  the  state  prison.  Authentic  statis- 
tics show  that  there  are  never  less  than  thirty  insane  persons  in 
each  of  our  two  great  penitentiaries.  In  the  state  prison  the 
prisoner  was  subjected  to  severe  corporeal  punishment  by  keepers, 
who  mistook  a  decay  of  mind  and  morbid  melancholy  for  idleness, 
obstinacy  and  malice.  Beaten,  as  he  was,  until  the  organs  of  his 
hearing  ceased  to  perform,  their  functions,  who  shall  say  that  other 
and  more  important  organs  connected  with  the  action  of  his  mind 
did  not  become  diseased  through  sympathy  ?  Such  a  life,  so  filled 
with  neglect,  injustice  and  severity,  with  anxiety,  pain,  disappoint- 
ment, solicitude,  and  grief,  would  have  its  fitting  conclusion  in  a 
madhouse.  If  it  be  true,  as  the  wisest  of  inspired  writers  hath 
said,  "  Yerily,  oppression  maketh  a  wise  man  mad,"  what  may  we 
not  expect  it  to  do  with  a  foolish,  ignorant,  illiterate  man !  Thus 
it  is  explained  Avhy,  when  he  came  out  of  prison,  he  was  so  dull, 
stupid,  morose  ;  excited  to  anger  by  petty  troubles,  small  in  our 
view,  but  mountains  in  his  way ;  filled  in  his  waking  hours  with 
moody  recollections,  and  rising  at  midnight  to  sing  incoherent 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  441 

songs,  dance  without  music,  read  unintelligible  jargon,  and  com- 
bat with  imaginary  enemies. 

How  otherwise  than  on  the  score  of  madness  can  you  explain 
the  stupidity  which  caused  him  to  be  taken  for  a  fool  at  Apple- 
gate's,  on  his  way  from  the  prison  to  his  home  ?  How  else  the 
ignorance  which  made  him  incapable  of  distinguishing  the  coin 
which  he  offered  at  the  hatter's  shop  ?  How  else  his  ludicrous 
apprehensions  of  being  recommitted  to  the  state  prison  for  five 
years,  for  the  offence  of  breaking  his  dinner  knife  ?  How  else  his 
odd  and  strange  manner  of  accounting  for  his  deafness  by  expres- 
sions all  absurd  and  senseless,  and  varying  with  each  interrogator : 
as  to  JOHN  DEPUY,  "  that  Tyler  struck  him  across  the  ears  with  a 
plank,  and  knocked  his  hearing  off,  and  that  it  never  came  back ; 
that  they  put  salt  in  his  car,  but  it  didn't  do  any  good,  for  his 
hearing  was  gone — all  knocked  off ;"  to  the  Rev.  JOHN  M.  AUSTIN, 
"  the  stones  dropped  down  my  ears,  or  the  stones  of  my  ears  drop- 
ped down ;"  to  ETHAN  A.  WARDEN,  "  got  stone  in  my  ears ;  got  it 
out ;  thought  I  heard  better  when  I  got  it  out ;"  to  Dr.  HERMANCE, 
"  that  his  ears  dropped ;"  and  to  the  same  witness ,  on  another 
occasion,  "  that  the  hearing  of  his  ears  fell  down  ;"  to  his  mother, 
"  that  his  ear  had  fell  down ;"  to  DEBORAH  DEPUY,  "  that  Tyler 
struck  him  on  the  head  with  a  board,  and  it  seemed  as  if  the  sound 
went  down  his  throat ;"  to  Dr.  BRIGHAM,  "  that  he  was  hurt  when 
young,  it  made  him  deaf  in  the  right  ear ;"  also,  "  that  in  the 
prison  he  was  struck  with  a  board  by  a  man,  which  made  him 
deaf;"  and  also,  "that  a  stone  was  knocked  into,  or  out  of  his  ear." 

It  is  now  perfectly  certain,  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  VAN 
ARSDALE  and  HELEN  HOLMES,  that  the  prisoner  first  stabbed  Mrs. 
Van  Nest  in  the  back  yard,  and  then  entered  the  house  and 
stabbed  Mr.  Van  Nest,  who  fell  lifeless  at  the  instant  of  the 
blow.  And  yet,  sincerely  trying  to  give  an  account  of  the  dread- 
ful scenes  exactly  as  they  passed,  the  prisoner  has  invariably 
stated,  in  his  answers  to  every  witness,  that  he  entered  the  house, 
stabbed  Yan  'Nest,  went  into  the  yard,  and  then,  and  not  before, 
killed  Mrs.  Yan  Nest.  It  was  in  this  order  that  he  related  the 
transaction  to  WARREN  T.  WORDEN,  to  JOHN  M.  AUSTIN,  to  IRA 
CURTIS,  to  ETHAN  A.  WARDEN,  to  WILLIAM  P.  SMITH,  to  Dr.  YAN 
EPPS,  to  JAMES  H.  BOSTWICK,  to  Dr.  BRIG  HAM,  to  NATHANIEL 
LYNCH,  to  Dr.  WILLARD,  to  Dr.  BIGELOW,  and  to  Dr.  SPENCER. 
How  else  than  on  the  score  of  madness  can  you  explain  this  con- 


442  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

fusion  of  memory  ?  and  if  the  prisoner  was  sane,  and  telling  a 
falsehood,  what  was  the  motive  ? 

How  else  than  on  the  score  of  a  demented  mind  will  you  ex- 
plain the  fact,  that  he  is  without  human  curiosity ;  that  he  has 
never,  since  he  came  out  of  prison,  learned  a  fact,  or  asked  a 
question  ?  He  has  been  visited  by  hundreds  in  his  cell,  by  faces 
become  familiar,  and  by  strangers,  by  fellow  prisoners,  by  jailers, 
by  sheriff,  by  counsel,  by  physician,  by  friends,  by  enemies,  and 
by  relations,  and  they  unanimously  bear  witness  that  he  never 
asked  a  question.  The  oyster,  shut  up  within  its  limestone  walls, 
is  as  inquisitive  as  he. 

How  else  will  you  explain  the  mystery  that  he,  who  seven 
years  ago  had  the  capacity  to  relate  connectively  any  narrative, 
however  extended,  and  however  complex  in  its  details,  is  now  un- 
able to  continue  any  relation  of  the  most  recent  events,  without 
the  prompting  of  perpetual  interrogatories,  always  leading  him  by 
known  landmarks ;  and  that  when  under  such  discipline  he  an- 
swers, he  employs  generally  only  the  easiest  forms,  "  Yes,"  "  No," 
"  Don't  know." 

Then  mark  the  confusion  of  his  memory,  manifested  by  con- 
tradictory replies  to  the  same  question.  WARREN  T.  "WORDEN 
asked  him :  "  Did  you  go  in  at  the  front  door  ?  Yes.  Did  you 
go  in  at  the  back  door  ?  Yes.  "Were  you  in  the  hall  when  your 
hand  Avas  cut  ?  Yes.  "Was  your  hand  cut  at  the  gate  ?  Yes. 
Did  you  stab  Mrs.  "Wyckoff  in  the  hall  ?  Yes.  Did  you  stab 
Mrs.  "Wyckoff  at  the  gate?  Yes.  Did  you  go  out  at  the 
back  door  ?  Yes.  Did  you  go  out  at  the  front  door  ?  Yes." 

«/  O 

ETHAN  A.  "WARDEN  asked  him,  ""What  made  you  kill  the 
child  ?"  "  Don't  know  anything  about  that."  At  another  time 
he  answered,  "  I  don't  think  about  it  ;  I  didn't  know  it  was  a 
child."  And  again,  on  another  occasion,  "  Thought— feel  it 
more  ;"  and  to  Dr.  BIGELOW  and  other  witnesses,  who  put  the 
question,  whether  he  was  not  sorry  he  had  killed  the  child,  he 
replied,  "  It  did  look  hard — I  rather  it  was  bigger."  "When  the 
ignorance,  simplicity,  and  sincerity  of  the  prisoner  are  admitted, 
how  otherwise  than  on  the  ground  of  insanity,  can  you  explain 
such  inconsistencies  as  these  ? 

.  The  testimony  of  VAN  ARSDALE  and  HELEN  HOLMES  proves 
that  no  words  could  have  passed  between  the  prisoner  and  Van 
Nest,  except  these,  "  "What  do  you  want  here  in  the  house  ? " 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  443 

spoken  by  Yan  Nest  before  the  fatal  blow  was  struck.  Yet  when 
inquired  of  by  WARREN  T.  WORDEN  what  Yan  Nest  said  to  him 
when  he  entered  the  house,  the  prisoner  said,  after  being  pressed 
to  an  answer,  that  Yan  Nest  said  to  him,  "  If  you  eat  my  liver, 
I'll  eat  yours  ;"  and  he  at  various  times  repeated  to  the  witness  the 
same  absurd  expression.  To  the  Rev.  JOHN  M.  AUSTIN  he  made 
the  same  statement  that  Yan  Nest  said,  "  If  you  eat  my  liver, 
I'll  eat  your  liver  ;"  to  IKA  CURTIS  the  same  ;  to  ETHAN  A.  WAR- 
DEN the  same  ;  to  LANSINGH  BRIGGS  the  same  ;  and  the  same  to 
almost  every  other  witness.  An  expression  so  absurd  under  the 
circumstances  could  never  have  been  made  by  the  victim.  How 
otherwise  can  it  be  explained  than  as  the  vagary  of  a  mind  shat- 
tered and  crazed  ? 

The  prosecution,  confounded  with  this  evidence,  appealed  to 
Dr.  SPENCER  for  relief.  He,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  learning, 
says,  that  he  has  read  of  an  ancient  and  barbarous  people,  who 
used  to  feast  upon  the  livers  of  their  enemies,  that  the  prisoner 
has  not  imagination  enough  to  have  invented  such  an  idea,  and 
that  he  must  have  somewhere  heard  the  tradition.  But  when 
did  this  demented  wretch,  who  reads  "  woman"  for  "  admirable," 
and  "  cook"  for  "  Thomson,"  read  Livy  or  Tytler.  and  in  what 
classical  circle  has  he  learned  the  customs  of  the  ancients  ?  Or, 
what  perhaps  is  more  pertinent,  who  were  that  ancient  and  barba- 
rous people,  and  who  was  their  historian  ? 

Consider  now  the  prisoner's  earnest  and  well-attested  sincerity 
in  believing  that  he  could  read,  when  either  he  never  had  ac- 
quired, or  else  had  lost,  the  art  of  reading.  The  Eev.  Mr.  AUS- 
TIN visited  him  in  jail,  at  an  early  day,  asked  him  whether  he 
could  read,  and  being  answered  that  he  could,  gave  him  a  Testa- 
ment. In  frequent  visits  afterwards,  when  the  prisoner  was  ask- 
ed whether  he  had  read  his  Testament,  he  answered  "  Yes,"  and 
it  was  not  until  after  the  lapse  of  two  months  that  it  was  disco- 
vered that  he  was  unable  to  spell  a  monosyllable. 

IKA  CURTIS  says :  "  I  asked  him  if  he  could  read ;  he  said, '  Yes,' 
and  commenced  reading,  that  is,  he  pretended  to,  but  he  didn't  rea'l 
what  was  there.  He  read, '  Oh  !  Lord — mercy — Moses1 — and  other 
words  mixed  up  in  that  way.  The  words  were  not  in  the  place 
where  he  seemed  to  be  reading,,  and  it  was  no  reading  at  all,  and 
some  words  he  had  over  I  had  never  heard  before.  I  took  the 
book  from  him,  saying,  '  You  don't  read  right.'  He  said,  'Yes,  I 


444  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

do.'  I  said,  '  William,  you  can't  read.'  He  said,  'I  can.'  I  gave 
him  a  paper,  pointed  him  to  the  word  '  admirable' — he  pronounced 
it  '  woman.'  I  pointed  to  the  word  '  Thompson' — he  read  it '  cook.' 
He  knew  his  letters,  and  called  them  accurately,  but  could  not 
combine  them.  I  asked  him  to  count.  He  commenced  and 
counted  from  one  up  to  twenty,  hesitated  there  some  time,  and 
finally  counted  up  to  twenty-eight,  and  then  jumped  to  eighty. 
Then  I  started  him  at  twenty,  and  he  said  '  one.'  I  told  him  to 
say  '  twenty-one' ;  but  he  seemed  to  have  difficulty  in  saying 
'  twenty-one.'  He  tried  to  go  on.  He  did  count  up  to  twenty 
regularly,  by  hesitating ;  but  never  went  higher  than  twenty-eight 
correctly.  I  asked  him  how  much  two  times  four  was — he  said, 
'  eighty.'  How  much  two  times  three  was — he  said,  '  sixty  or  sixty- 
four.'  "  Many  other  witnesses  on  both  sides  of  this  cause,  Mr. 
AUSTIN,  Mr.  HOPKINS,  Mr.  HOTCHKISS,  Mr.  WOEDEN,  Mr.  SMITH, 
Dr.  VAN  EPPS,  Dr.  BRIGHAM,  Dr.  MoCALL,  Dr.  COVENTRY,  Dr. 
WILLABD,  Dr.  BIGELOW,  Dr.  CLARY  and  Dr.  SPENCEE,  have  with 
varied  ingenuity,  sought  to  detect  a  fraud  in  this  extreme  ignorance 
and  simplicity,  and  have  unanimously  testified  to  you  that  the 
simpleton  sincerely  believes  he  reads  accurately,  and  as  honestly 
thinks  he  counts  above  twenty-eight  correctly,  while  in  truth  he 
cannot  advance  above  that  number  in  counting,  and  cannot  read 
at  all.  Yet  he  must,  at  least,  have  learnt  in  the  Sunday  School 
that  he  could  not  read,  and  the  keepers  of  the  prison  show  that  he 
put  up  his  daily  manufacture  of  rings  and  of  skeins  of  thread,  in 
quantities  accurately  counted,  to  the  number  of  several  dozen. 

I  think  you  will  agree  with  DOCTOR  HUN,  that  there  is  not  a  sane 
man  twenty-three  years  of  age,  brought  up  in  this  country,  who 
does  not  know  whether  he  can  read,  and  who  cannot  count  twenty- 
nine. 

Mark  his  indifference  and  stupidity  concerning  his  situation. 
ETHAN  A.  WAEDEN  asked  him,  "  Do  you  expect  to  be  hung  ?  '  Don't 
think  about  it.'  Do  you  like  to  be  in  jail  ?  '  Pretty  well.'  Is  it 
a  good  place?  'Yes.'  Do  you  sleep  well  ?  'Yes.'  Do  you  think 
of  what  you've  done  ?  '  No.' " 

WILLIAM  P.  SMITH  asked  him  in  the  jail  if  he  knew  whether  he 
was  in  jail  or  in  prison.  He  hesitated  some  time,  and  finally 
thought  he  was  in  the  jail,  but  wasn't  sure.  "  Do  you  know  what 
you  are  confined  here  for  ?"  "  No." 

Dr.  YAN  EPPS  asked  him  what  he  was  put  in  jail  for.     "  Don't 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  445 

know."     Afterward  he  seemed  to  recollect  himself  and  said 
"  horse." 

Dr.  BRIGHAM  says,  "  I  tried  in  various  ways  to  ascertain  if  he 
knew  what  he  was  to  be  tried  for.  I  tried  repeatedly  and  never 
could  get  a  distinct  answer.  It  was  often  '  I  don't  know,'  and  some- 
times '  a  horse?  I  asked  him  at  one  time,  what  his  defence  would 
be.  Shall  we  say  that  you  did  not  kill  ?  He  answered  very  quick- 
ly, looking  up,  '  No.'  But  may  we  not  say  so  ?  '  No,  that  would 
be  wrong ;  I  did  do  it.'  Some  one  asked  him  when  others  were 
there,  May  we  not  say  you  are  crazy  ?  '  I  can't  go  so  far  as  that.' 
I  asked  him  if  he  had  employed  any  body  to  defend  him,  and  said, 
Mr.  Seward  is  now  here,  you  had  better  employ  him  and  tell  him 
what  to  say.  Here  is  Mr.  Seward,  ask  him.  He  said  in  a  reading 
tone,  '  Governor  Seward,  I  want  you  to  defend  me,'  repeating  the 
words  I  had  told  him  to  use." 

When  on  trial  for  stealing  a  horse,  six  years  ago,  he  had  counsel 
of  his  own  choice,  and  was  treated  and  tried  as  a  man  who  under- 
stood and  knew  his  rights,  as  indeed  it  is  proved  that  he  did. 
Here,  his  life  is  at  stake.  He  does  not  know  even  the  name  of  a 
witness  for  or  against  him,  although  his  memory  recalls  the  names 
of  those  who  testified  against  him  on  his  trial  for  stealing  the  horse, 
and  the  very  effect  of  their  testimony. 

Dr.  BRIGHAM  says,  "  I  asked  him  what  he  could  prove  in  his 
defence.  He  replied, '  the  jury  can  prove  that  I  was  in  prison  five 
years  for  stealing  a  horse,  and  didn't  steal  it.'  " 

When  asked  if  he  is  not  sorry  for  crimes  so  atrocious,  he  an- 
swers always,  either,  "  No,"  or  "  Don't  know." 

On  the  very  day  when  he  was  to  be  arraigned,  he  had  no  coun- 
sel; and,  as  Mr.  AUSTIN  testifies,  was  made  to  understand,  with 
difficulty,  enough  to  repeat  like  a  parrot  a  consent  that  I  should 
defend  him.  The  Attorney  General  says,  the  prisoner  "  knew  he 
was  guilty,  and  that  counsel  could  do  nothing  for  him.  If  he  was 
as  wise  and  as  intelligent  as  Bacon  himself,  he  could  give  no  in- 
structions to  counsel  that  would  help  him."  Aye,  but  is  he  as  wise 
and  as  intelligent  as  Bacon  ?  Has  he  any  intelligence  ?  No,  gentle- 
men, no  man  ever  heard  of  a  sane  murderer  in  whose  bosom  the 
love  of  life  and  the  fear  of  death  were  alike  extinguished. 

The  accused  sat  here  in  court,  and  saw  Dr.  BIGELOW  on  the  stand, 
swearing  away  his  life,  upon  confessions  already  taken.     Dr.  BIGE- 
LOW followed  him  from  the  court  to  his  cell,  and  there  the  prisoner, 
VOL.  1—29. 


446  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

with  child-like  meekness,  sat  down  on  his  bench  and  confessed 
further  for  hours,  all  the  while  holding  the  lamp  by  whose  light 
Dr.  BIGELOW  recorded  the  testimony,  obtained  for  the  purpose  of 
sealing  his  fate  beyond  a  possible  deliverance. 

He  is  asked  about  the  Judges  here,  is  ignorant  where  they  sit, 
and  can  only  remember  that  there  is  a  good  looking  man  on  the 
elevated  stage,  which  he  is  told  is  the  bench.  He  is  asked  what 
they  say  in  court,  and  he  says  i;  They  talk,  but  I  hear  nothing  ;'' 
what  or  whom  are  they  talking  about,  and  he  says  ;i  Don't  know  ;" 
whom  he  has  seen  here,  and  he  recalls  not  his  judges,  the  jury, 
the  witnesses,  or  the  counsel,  but  only  the  man  who  gives  him 
tobacco. 

From  his  answers  to  Mr.  HOPKINS,  Mr.  AUSTIN*,  Mr.  SMITH,  and 
others,  as  well  as  from  the  more  reliable  testimony  of  his  mother, 
of  his  brother-in-law,  of  Mr.  LYNCH,  Mr.  WARDEN,  Mr.  HOTCHKISS, 
and  others,  we  learn  that  in  his  childhood  and  in  State  Prison,  he 
attended  Sunday  School  and  divine  worship.  Yet  we  find  him 
at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  after  repeated  religious  instructions, 
having  no  other  idea  of  a  supreme  being  and  of  a  future  state 
than  that  Heaven  is  a  place  above,  and  God  is  above,  but  that  God 
is  no  more  than  a  man  or  an  animal.  And  when  asked  by  Mr. 
HOPKINS  what  he  knew  about  Jesus  Christ,  he  answered  that  he 
once  came  to  Sunday  School  in  the  State  Prison.  What  did  he 
do  there  ?  ';  Don't  know."  Did  he  take  a  class  there  ?  "  Don't 
know."  Did  he  preach  ?  "  Don't  know."  Did  he  talk  \  "  Don't 
know."  The  prisoner  gave  the  same  answers  to  the  Kev.  Mr.  AUS- 
TIN, to  Mr.  HOPKINS,  his  Sunday  School  teacher,  and  to  Dr. 
BRIGHAM. 

Mr.  HORACE  HOTCHKISS  says:  "I  asked  him  in  the  jail,  If  you 
shall  be  convicted  and  executed,  what  will  become  of  you?  He 
answered,  '  Go  to  Heaven.'  I  asked  him  why,  and  he  replied, 
'  Because  I  am  good.'  r  Dr.  BRIGHAM  inquired  :  "  Do  you  know 
anything  of  Jesus  Christ  ?"  "  I  saw  him  once."  "  Did  you  kill 
him  at  Van  Xest's  ?"  The  poor  fool  (as  if  laboring  with  some 
confused  and  inexplicable  idea)  said,  "  Don't  know."  I  think, 
gentlemen,  that  you  will  agree  with  Dr.  HUN,  Dr.  BRIGHAM,  and 
the  other  intelligent  witnesses,  who  say  that,  in  their  opinion, 
there  is  no  sane  man  of  the  age  of  twenty-three,  who  has  been 
brought  up  in  church-going  families,  and  been  sent  to  Sunday 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  447 

School,  whose  religions  sentiments  would,  under  such  circum- 
stances, be  so  confused  and  so  absurd  as  these. 

To  the  Eev.  Mr.  AUSTIN,  he  said  after  his  arrest,  "  If  tJiey  will 
let  me  go  this  time,  I  will  try  and  do  better."  And  well  did  that 
witness  remark,  that  "such  a  statement  evinced  a  want  of  all  rational 
appreciation  of  the  nature  and  enormity  of  his  acts,  for  no  man 
twenty-three  years  old,  possessing  a  sound  mind,  and  guilty  of 
four-fold  murders,  could  suppose  that  he  would  be  allowed  to 
escape  all  punishment  by  simply  promising,  like  a  penitent  child, 
that  he  would  "  do  better." 

Mark  his  insensibility  to  corporeal  pain  and  suffering.  In  the 
conflict  with  Mrs.  TVYkoff,  he  received  a  blow  which  divided  a 
sinew  in  his  wrist,  and  penetrated  to  the  bone.  The  physicians 
found  him  in  the  jail  with  this  wound,  his  legs  chained,  and  heavy 
irons  depending  unequally  from  his  knees.  Yet  he  manifested 
absolute  insensibility.  Insane  men  are  generally  very  insensible 
to  pain.  The  reason  is,  that  the  nervous  system  is  diseased,  and 
the  senses  do  not  convey  to  the  mind  accurate  ideas  of  injuries 
sustained.  Nevertheless,  this  passes  for  nothing  with  Dr.  Spencer, 
because  there  was  an  ancient  sect  of  philosophers  who  triumphed, 
or  affected  to  triumph,  over  the  weakness  of  our  common  nature, 
and  because  there  are  modern  heroes  who  die  without  a  groan  on 
the  field  of  battle.  But  in  what  school  of  philosophy,  or  in  what 
army,  or  in  what  battle-ship  was  this  idiot  trained,  that  he  has  be- 
come insensible  to  pain,  and  reckless  of  death  ? 

I  proposed,  gentlemen,  at  the  close  of  the  testimony,  that  you 
should  examine  the  prisoner  for  yourselves.  I  regret  that  the 
offer  was  rejected.  You  can  obtain  only  very  imperfect  knowledge 
from  testimony  in  which  the  answers  of  the  prisoner  are  given 
with  the  freedom  and  volubility  of  reporters.  We  often  judge  more 
justly  from  the  tone,  manner,  and  spirit  of  those  with  whom  we 
converse,  than  from  the  language  they  use.  All  the  witnesses 
agree  that  the  prisoner's  tone  and  modulation  are  slow,  indistinct, 
and  monotonous.  His  utterance,  in  fact,  is  that  of  an  idiot,  but 
on  paper  it  is  as  distinct  as  that  of  Cicero. 

I  have  thus  shown  you,  gentlemen,  the  difficulties  which  attend 
you  in  this  investigation,  the  law  concerning  insanity,  the  nature 
and  characteristics  of  that  disease,  the  great  change  which  the 
prisoner  has  undergone,  and  some  of  those  marked  extravagances 
which  denote  lunacy.  More  conclusive  evidence  yet  remains; 


448  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

and  first,  the  delusion  by  which  the  prisoner  was  overpowered, 
and  under  whose  fearful  spell  his  crimes  were  committed. 

Delusion  does  not  always  attend  insanity,  but  when  found,  it  is 
the  most  unequivocal  of  all  proofs.  I  have  already  observed  that 
melancholy  is  the  first  stage  of  madness,  and  that  it  long  furnished 
the  name  for  insanity.  In  the  case  of  Hatfield,  who  fired  at  the 
King  in  Drury-Lane  Theatre,  Lord  Erskine,  his  counsel,  demon- 
strated that  insanity  did  not  consist  in  the  absence  of  any  of  the 
intellectual  faculties,  but  in  delusion ;  and  that  an  offender  was 
irresponsible,  if  his  criminal  acts  were  the  immediate,  unqualified 
offspring  of  such  delusion.  Erskine  there  defined  a  delusion  to 
consist  in  deductions  from  the  immovable  assumption  of  matters  as 
realities,  either  without  any  foundation  whatever,  or  so  distorted 
and  disfigured  by  fancy  as  to  be  nearly  the  same  thing  as  their 
creation. 

The  learned  men  here  have  given  us  many  illustrations  of  such 
delusions ;  as  that  of  the  man  who  believes  that  his  legs  are  of 
glass,  and  therefore  refuses  to  move,  for  fear  they  will  break ;  of 
the  man  who  fancies  himself  the  King  of  the  French ;  or  of  him 
who  confides  to  you  the  precious  secret  that  he  is  Emperor  of  the 
world.  These  are  palpable  delusions ;  but  there  are  others  equally, 
or  even  more  fatal  in  their  effects,  which  have  their  foundation  in 
some  original  fact,  and  are  thus  described  by  Dr.  Ray,  at  page  210 
of  his  work : 

"  In  another  class  of  cases,  the  exciting  cause  of  homicidal  insanity  is  of  a  moral 
nature,  operating  upon  some  peculiar  physical  predisposition,  and  sometimes  followed 
by  more  or  less  physical  disturbance.  Instead  of  being  urged  by  a  sudden,  imperious 
impulse  to  kill,  the  subjects  of  this  form  of  the  affection,  after  suffering  for  a  certain 
period  much  gloom  of  mind  and  depression  of  spirits,  feel  as  if  bound  by  a  sense  of 
necessity  to  destroy  life,  and  proceed  to  the  fulfilment  of  their  destiny  with  the  utmost 
calmness  and  deliberation.  So  reluctant  have  courts  and  juries  usually  been  to  receive 
the  plea  of  insanity  in  defence  of  crime,  deliberately  planned  and  executed  by  a  mind 
in  which  no  derangement  of  intellect  has  ever  been  perceived,  that  it  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  that  the  nature  of  these  cases  should  not  be  misunderstood." 

Our  learned  witnesses  have  given  us  various  definitions  of  a 
delusion.  Dr.  HUN'S  is  perhaps  as  clear  and  accurate  as  any  :  "  It 
is  a  cherished  opinion  opposed  by  the  sense  and  judgment  of  all 
mankind."  In  simple  speech,  it  is  what  is  called  the  predominance 
of  ONE  IDEA,  by  which  reason  is  subverted.  I  shall  now  show  you 
such  a  predominance  of  one  idea,  as  will  elucidate  the  progress  of 
this  maniac,  from  the  first  disturbance  of  his  mind  to  the  dreadful 
catastrophe  on  the  shore  of  the  Owasco  lake.  That  delusion  is  a 
star  to  guide  your  judgments  to  an  infallible  conclusion,  that  the 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  449 

prisoner  is  insane.  If  you  mistake  its  course,  and  consign  him  to 
a  scaffold,  it  will  rest  over  his  grave,  indicating  him  as  a  martyr, 
and  you  as  erring  or  unjust  judges. 

In  April,  1840,  Mrs.  GODFREY,  who  resides  in  the  town  of  Sen- 
nett,  on  the  middle  road,  four  miles  north-east  of  Auburn,  lost  a 
horse.  Jack  Furman,  a  hardened  offender,  stole  the  horse.  For 
some  purpose,  not  now  known,  he  put  him  into  the  care  of  the 
prisoner,  who  was  seen  with  the  horse.  Both  Furman  and  Free- 
man were  arrested.  The  former  was  the  real  thief  and  Freeman 
constructively  guilty.  Freeman  was  arrested  by  Yanderheyden, 
taken  into  an  upper  chamber,  and  there  declared  his  innocence  of 
the  crime.  He  was  nevertheless  committed  to  jail.  All  the  police, 
and  the  most  prejudiced  of  the  witnesses  for  the  people,  have 
testified  their  entire  conviction  that  the  prisoner  was  innocent. 
Furman  was  selected  by  favor  as  a  witness  for  the  people.  Free- 
man, while  in  jail,  comprehending  his  danger,  and  conscious  of 
his  innocence,  dwelt  upon  the  injustice,  until,  having  no  other 
hope,  he  broke  prison  and  escaped.  Being  retaken,  he  assigned, 
as  the  reason  for  his  flight,  that  Jack  Furman  stole  the  horse,  and 
was  going  to  swear  him  into  the  state  prison.  The  result  was  as 
he  apprehended.  He  was  convicted  by  the  perjury  of  Furman, 
and  sentenced  to  the  state  prison  for  five  years.  This  was  tkeftrst 
act  in  the  awful  tragedy  of  which  he  is  the  hero.  Let  judges  and 
jurors  take  warning  from  its  fatal  consequences.  How  deeply  this 
injustice  sank  into  his  mind,  may  be  seen  from  the  testimony  of 
AKETAS  A.  SABEST,  the  keeper,  who  said  to  him  on  the  day  he  en- 
tered the  prison,  "  I  am  sorry  to  see  you  come  here  so  young." 
The  prisoner  wept.  Well  would  it  have  been,  if  this,  the  last 
occasion  on  which  the  prisoner  yielded  to  that  infirmity,  had, 
ominous  as  it  was  of  such  fatal  mischief,  been  understood  and 
heeded. 

A  year  passed  away  ;  and  he  is  found  in  the  prison,  neglecting 
his  allotted  labor,  sullen  and  morose. 

JAMES  E.  TTLEB,  the  keeper,  says :  "  I  had  talked  to  him,  and  found  it  did  no  good. 
I  called  him  up  to  punish  him — told  him  I  was  going  to  punish  him  for  not  doing  more 
work,  and  should  do  so  repeatedly  until  he  should  do  more  work.  When  I  talked  with 
him  about  doing  more  work,  he  gave  as  an  excuse, '  that  he  was  there  wrongfully,  and 
ought  not  to  work.' " 

.  The  excuse  aggravated  the  severity  of  his  castigation.  Such 
was  penitentiary  cure  for  incipient  insanity. 

VAN  KUREN,  a  foreman  in  one  of  the  shops  at  the  prison,  represents  the  prisoner  as 
sullen,  intractable,  and  insolent.  He  caused  him  to  be  punished,  although  he  then  dis- 


450  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

covered,  on  all  occasions,  that  idiotic  laugh,  without  cause  or  motive,  which  marks  the 
maniac. 

SILAS  E.  BAKER  remarked  the  same  idiotic  laugh  when  the  prisoner  was  at  his  work, 
in  his  cell,  and  in  the  chapel. 

WILLIAM  P.  SMITH,  a  foreman  in  the  prison,  remarked  his  peculiarities,  but  unfortunately 
was  not  then  led  to  their  true  cause. 

THKBON  R.  GREEN,  as  has  been  already  seen,  discovered  the  same  peculiarities,  divined 
their  cause,  held  him  irresponsible,  and  gave  an  unheeded  warning  against  his  enlarge- 
ment. 

The  discipline  of  the  prison  forbids  conversation  between  con- 
vict and  convict,  and  between  keepers  and  prisoners.  The  iron 
that  had  entered  the  prisoner's  soul  was  necessarily  concealed,  but 
DEPTJY,  and  WARDEN,  and  GREEN,  who  thought  him  changed  then, 
as  well  as  SMITH,  VAN  KTJREN,  BAKER,  and  TTLEK,  who  regarded 
him  only  as  ignorant  and  obstinate,  give  conclusive  evidence  that 
the  ruin  of  his  mind  was  betrayed  in  a  visible  change  of  his  ap- 
pearance, conduct  and  character. 

The  time  at  length  arrived,  when  the  secret  could  no  longer  be 
suppressed.  The  new  chaplain,  the  Rev.  ALONZO  WOOD,  was  in  the 
agent's  office  when  the  prisoner  was  discharged.  Two  dollars,  the 
usual  gratuity,  was  offered  him,  and  he  was  asked  to  sign  a  receipt. 
"  1 ain't  going  to  settle  so."  For  five  years,  until  it  became  the 
ruling  thought  of  his  life,  the  idea  had  been  impressed  upon  his 
mind,  that  he  had  been  imprisoned  wrongfully,  and  would,  there- 
fore, be  entitled  to  payment  on  his  liberation.  This  idea  was 
opposed  "  ~by  the  judgment  and  sense  of  all  mankind"  The  court 
that  convicted  him  pronounced  him  guilty,  and  spoke  the  sense 
and  judgment  of  mankind.  But  still  he  remained  unconvinced. 
The  keepers  who  flogged  him  pronounced  his  claim  unjust  and 
unfounded,  and  they  were  exponents  of  the  "  sense  and  judgment 
of  all  mankind."  But  imprisonment,  bonds  and  stripes,  could  not 
remove  the  one  inflexible  idea.  The  agents,  the  keepers,  the  clerk, 
the  spectators,  and  even  the  reverend  chaplain,  laughed  at  the 
simplicity  and  absurdity  of  the  claim  of  the  discharged  convict, 
when  he  said,  "I've  worked  five  years  for  the  state,  and  ain't  going 
to  settle  so."  Alas !  little  did  they  know  that  they  were  deriding 
the  delusion  of  a  maniac.  Had  they  been  wise,  they  would  have 
known  that — 

"  So  foul  a  sky  clears  not  without  a  storm." 

The  peals  of  their  laughter  were  the  warning  voice  of  human 
nature  for  the  safety  of  the  family  of  Yan  Nest. 
Thus  closes  the  second  act  of  the  sad  drama. 
The  maniac  reaches  his  home,  sinks  sullenly  to  his  seat,  and 


DEFENCE  OP  WILLIAM  FREEMAN,  451 

hour  after  hour  relates  to  JOHN  DEPUT  the  story  of  his  wrongful 
imprisonment,  and  of  the  cruel  and  inhuman  treatment  which  he 
had  suffered ;  inquires  for  the  persons  who  had  caused  him  to  he 
unjustly  convicted,  learns  their  names,  and  goes  about  drooping, 
melancholy  and  sad,  dwelling  continually  upon  his  wrongs,  and 
studying  intensely  in  his  bewildered  mind  how  to  obtain  redress. 
Many  passed  him,  marking  his  altered  countenance  and  carriage, 
without  stopping  to  inquire  the  cause.  Doctor  HEKMANCE  alone 
sought  an  explanation  :  "  I  met  him  about  the  first  of  December 
last ;  I  thought  his  manner  very  singular  and  strange.  I  inquired 
the  cause.  He  told  me  that  he  had  been  in  the  prison  for  five 
years,  and  that  he  wasn't  guilty,  and  that  they  wouldn't  pay  him. 
I  met  him  afterward  in  the  street,  again  remarked  his  peculiari- 
ties, and  inquired  the  cause.  He  answered  as  before,  that  he  had 
been  in  State  Prison  five  years  wrongfully,  and  they  wouldn't 
pay  him." 

The  one  idea  disturbs  him  in  his  dreams  and  forces  him  from 
his  bed  ;  he  complains  that  he  can  make  no  gain  and  can't  live  so ; 
he  dances  to  his  own  wild  music,  and  encounters  imaginary  com 
batants. 

Time  passes  on  until  February.  He  visits  Mrs.  Godfrey  at  her 
house  in  Sennett.  He  enters  the  house,  deaf,  and  stands  mute.  "  I 
gave  him  a  chair,"  says  Mrs.  Godfrey;  "he  sat  down.  Tasked 
which  wTay  he  was  travelling.  He  wanted  to  know  if  that 
was  the  place  where  a  woman  had  a  horse  stole  five  years  be- 
fore. I  told  him  it  was.  He  said  he  had  been  to  prison  for  steal- 
ing: the  horse,  and  didn't  steal  it  neither.  I  told  him  I  knew  noth- 

O  ? 

ing  about  that,  whether  it  was  he  or  not.  He  said  he'd  b.een  to 
prison  for  stealing  a  horse,  and  didn't  steal  it,  and  he  wanted  a 
settlement.  Johnson,  who  was  there,  asked  him  if  he  should 
know  the  horse  if  he  should  see  it.  '  oSTo.'  '  Do  you  want  the 
horse  ?'  ']STo.  Are  you  the  man  who  took  me  up  ?  "Where  is  the 
man  who  kept  the  tavern  across  the  way  and  helped  to  catch 
me  ?'  '  He  is  gone.'  I  asked  him  if  he  was  hungry.  He  said 
he  didn't  know  but  he  was.  I  gave  him  some  cakes,  and  he  sat 
and  ate  them." 

Here  was  exhibited  at  once  the  wildness  of  the  maniac,  and  the 
imbecility  of  the  demented  man.  His  delusion  was  opposed  to 
"  the  sense  and  judgment  of  all  mankind."  Mrs.  GODFREY  and 
Mr.  JOHNSON  exposed  its  fallacy.  But  still  the  one  idea  remained 


452  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

unconquered  and  unconquerable.  The  maniac  who  came  to  de- 
mand pay  for  five  years'  unjust  imprisonment  was  appeased  with  a 
morsel  of  cake. 

He  was  next  seen  at  Mr.  Seward's  office,  a  week  or  ten  days 
days  before  the  murder.  He  asked  if  that  was  a  'squire's  office, 
and  said  he  wanted  a  warrant.  Mr.  PARSONS,  the  clerk,  says  :  "I 
didn't  understand  until  he  had  asked  once  or  twice.  I  asked  him 
what  he  wanted  a  warrant  for.  He  said  for  the  man  who  had 
been  getting  him  into  prison,  and  he  wanted  to  get  damages.  I 
told  him  the  Justices'  offices  were  up  street,  and  he  went  away." 

Next  we  find  him  at  the  office  of  LYMAN  PAINE,  Esq.,  Justice,  on 
the  Saturday  preceding  the  death  of  Van  Nest.  Mr.  PAINE  says : 
"  He  opened  the  door,  came  in  a  few  feet,  and  stood  nearly  a  mi- 
nute with  his  head  down,  so.  He  looked  up  and  said  :  '  Sir,  I 
want  a  warrant.''  '  "What  for.'  He  stood  a  little  time,  and 
then  said  again  :  '  Sir,  I  want  a  warrant.'  '  What  do  you 
want  a  warrant  for  ?"  He  stood  a  minute,  started,  and  came  up 
close  to  me,  and  spoke  very  loud :  '  /Sir,  I  want  a  warrant.  I  am 
very  deaf,  and  can't  hear  very  well.'  I  asked  him  in  a  louder 
voice  what  he  wanted  a  warrant  for.  '  For  a  man  who  put  me  to 
State  Prison.'  '  "What  is  your  name  ?'  '  William  Freeman ; 
and  I  want  a  warrant  for  the  man  who  put  me  to  prison.'  I  said  : 
'  If  you've  been  to  prison,  you  have  undoubtedly  been  tried  for 
some  offence.'  '  I  have  ;  it  was  for  stealing  a  horse,  but  I  didn't 
steal  it.  I've  been  there  five  years.'  I  asked  who  he  wanted  a 
warrant  for.  He  told  some  name — I  think  it  was  Mr.  Doty." 
[You  will  remember,  gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Doty,  Mr.  Hall,  and 
Mrs.  Godfrey,  all  of  Sennett,  and  Jack  Furman,  of  this  town, 
were  the  witnesses  against  him.]  "  I  told  him  if  he  wanted  a 
warrant,  it  must  be  for  perjury — he  must  give  me  the  facts  and  I 
would  see.  He  stood  two  or  three  minutes  and  then  said  :  '  Sir, 
I  want  a  warrant^  I  asked  further  information.  He  stood  a  lit- 
tle while  longer,  took  out  a  quarter  of  a  dollar,  threw  it  on  the  ta- 
ble, and  said  :  '  /  demand  a  warrant' — appeared  in  a  passion,  and 
soon  after  went  out.  He  returned  in  the  afternoon,  said  he  would 
have  a  warrant,  and  gave  the  names  of  Mr.  Doty  and  Mrs.  God- 
frey." 

Mr.  PAINE  saw,  in  all  this,  evidence  of  stupidity,  ignorance,  and 
malice,  only,  but  not  of  insanity.  But,  gentlemen,  if  he  could 
have  looked  back  to  the  origin  of  the  prisoner's  infatuation,  and 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.    ,  453 

forward  to  the  dreadful  catastrophe  on  the  shore  of  the  Owasco 
Lake,  as  we  now  see  it,  who  can  doubt  that  he  would  then  have 
pronounced  the  prisoner  a  maniac,  and  have  granted,  not  the  war- 
rant he  asked,  but  an  order  for  his  commitment  to  the  County  Jail, 
or  to  the  Lunatic  Asylum  ? 

Denied  the  process,  to  which  he  thought  himself  entitled,  he 
proceeded  a  day  or  two  later  to  the  office  of  JAMES  H.  BOSTWICK, 
Esq.,  another  justice.  "  I  saw  him,"  says  this  witness,  "  a  day  or 
two  before  the  murder.  He  came,  and  said  he  wanted  a  warrant. 
I  asked  for  whom.  He  replied:  'for  those  that  got  me  to 
prison.  I  was  sent  wrongfully.  I  want  pay.''  I  asked  him  who 
the  persons  were.  He  mentioned  a  widow  and  two  men.  He 
mentioned  Mrs.  Godfrey  as  the  widow  woman,  Jack  Furman  and 
David  "W.  Simpson  as  the  two  men."  (Simpson  was  the  consta- 
ble by  whom  he  was  arrested  the  second  time  for  stealing  the 
horse.)  Mr.  BOSTWICK  declined  issuing  the  warrant,  and  informed 
him  there  was  no  remedy,  and  again  expounded  to  him  the  "  sense 
and  judgment  of  all  mankind,"  in  opposition  to  his  delusion. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  JOHN  DEPUY,  the  prisoner  was 
agitated  by  alternate  hope  and  despair  in  regard  to  his  redress. 
At  one  time  he  told  DEPUY,  that  he'd  got  it  all  fixed,  and  wanted 
him  to  go  down  to  the  justice's  office  and  see  that  he  was  paid 
right.  At  another,  he  told  DEPUY  that  the  "  Squires  wouldn't  do 
nothing  about  it ;  that  he  could  get  no  warrant,  nor  pay,  and  he 
couldn't  live  so." 

Then  it  was  that  the  one  idea  completely  overthrew  what 
remained  of  mind,  conscience,  and  reason.  If  you  believe  HER- 
SEY,  Freeman,  about  a  week  before  the  murder,  showed  him 
several  butcher  kniv.es,  told  him  he  meant  to  kill  Depuy,  \is 
brother-in-law,  for  trivial  reasons,  which  he  assigned,  and  said  that 
he  had  found  the  folks  that  put  him  in  prison,  and  meant  to  kill 
them.  HERSEY  says :  "  I  asked  him  who  they  were.  He  said, 
they  were  Mr.  Van  Nest,  and  said  no  more  about  them.  He 
didn't  say  where  they  lived,  and  nothing  about  any  other  man, 
woman,  or  widow."  This  witness  admits  that  he  suppressed  this 
fact  on  the  preliminary  examination. 

If  you  reject  this  testimony,  then  there  is  no  evidence  that  he 
ever  had  any  forethought  of  slaying  Yan  Nest.  If  you  receive  it, 
it  proves  the  complete  subversion  of  his  understanding ;  for  John 
G.  Yan  Nest,  and  all  the  persons  slain,  resided  not  in  Sennett,  nor 


4:54  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

in  Auburn,  but  four  miles  south  of  the  latter  place,  and  eight 
miles  from  the  house  of  Mrs.  Godfrey.  The  prisoner,  within  a 
week  before  the  crime,  named  to  the  magistrates  every  person 
who  was  concerned  in  his  previous  conviction.  We  have  shown 
that  neither  John  G.  Yan  Nest,  nor  any  of  his  family  or  kindred, 
nor  any  person  connected  with  him,  was,  or  could  have  been,  a 
party,  a  magistrate,  a  witness,  a  constable,  a  sheriff,  a  grand  juror? 
attorney,  petit  juror,  or  judge,  in  that  prosecution,  or  ever  knew 
or  heard  of  the  prosecution,  or  ever  heard  or  knew  that  any  such 
larceny  had  been  committed,  or  that  such  a  being  as  the  prisoner 
existed.  Mrs.  GODFREY  and  the  witnesses  on  the  former  occasion, 
became  known  to  the  remaining  family  and  relatives  of  Yan 
Nest,  here  in  court,  for  the  first  time,  during  these  trials. 

You  will  remember  that  Erskine's  test  of  a  delusion  that  takes 
away  responsibility  is — that  the  cinminal  act  must  be  the  imme- 
diate^ unqualified  offspring  of  the  delusion.  I  shall  now  proceed 
to  show,  that  such  is  the  fact  in  the  present  case. 

The  first  witness  to  whom  the  prisoner  spoke  concerning  the  deeds 
which  he  had  committed  was  GEORGE  B.  PARKEK.  This  was  at  Phe- 
nix,  Oswego  county,  immediately  after  his  arrest,  within  twenty 
hours  after  the  perpetration  of  the  crime.  "  I  pushed  very  hard  for 
the  reasons,"  says  the  witness,  "what  he  had  against  Yan  Nest.  '/ 
suppose  you  know  Tve  been  in  State  Prison  five  years,  he  replied. 
'  I  was  put  there  innocently,  I've  been  whipped  and  knocked  and 
abused,  and  made  deaf,  and  there  won't  any  body  pay  me  for  it.' " 

YANDERILEYDEN  arrived  soon  afterwards.     He  says  :  "  I  called 
the  prisoner  aside,  and  said  to  him :  '  Now  we're  alone,  and  you  • 
may  as  well  tell  me  how  you  came  to  commit  this.'    He  says  to 
me*:  '  You  know  there  is  no  law  for  me."1    I  asked  him  what  he 
meant  by  that  '  no  law  /'    He  said,  '  THEY  OUGHT  to  PAY  ME.  ' " 

ETHAN  A.  WARDEN  followed  him  into  his  cell  in  the  jail,  and 
asked  him,  "  When  you  started  from  home  what  did  you  go  up 
there  for  ? — '  /  must  go?  Why  must  you  go  ?  '  /  must  begin 
my  work?  What  made  you  do  it  ?  '  They  brought  me  up  so.' 
Who  brought  you  up  so  ?  '  The  State.1  They  didn't  tell  you  to 
kill,  did  they  ?  '•Dorit  know — won't  pay  me?  Did  you  know 
these  folks  before  you  went  to  prison  ?  '  No?  Was  you  there  a 
few  days  before  to  get  work  ?  '  Yes?  Did  they  say  anything 
to  offend  you  or  make  you  angry  ?  '  No?  What  made  you  kill 
them  ;  what  did  you  do  it  for?  '  I  must  begin  my  work?  Didn't 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  455 


you  expect  to  be  killed  ?  '  Didn't  know  but  I  should?  If  you 
expected  to  be  killed  what  made  you  go  ;  did  you  go  to  get  mo- 
ney? l  No?  Did  you  expect  to  get  money?  'No?  Did  you 
intend  to  get  the  horse  ?  '  No?  How  did  you  come  to  take 
him  ?  '  Broke  my  things,  (meaning  knives) — hand  was  cut — came 
into  my  mind— take  the  horse — go — and — get  so — could  do  no 
more  work?  If  you  had  not  broke  your  things,  what  would 
you  have  done  ?  '  Kept  to  work?  Did  you  mean  to  keep  right 
on  ?  '  I  meant  to  keep  to  work?  "Would  you  have  killed  me  if  you 
had  met  me?  ^Spose  I  should?  What  made  you  begin  at  that 
house?  ''Stopped  two  or  three  places,  thought  it  wasn't  far 
out  enough  to  begin?  Are  you  not  sorry  you  killed  so  many  ? 
'  Don't  think  anything  about  it?  " 

The  prisoner  has  invariably  given  similar  answers  to  every  per- 
son who  has  asked  him  the  motive  for  his  crime. 

WARKEN  T.  WOKDEN,  Esq.,  says,  "I  asked  him  why  he  took  the 
horse  ?  He  answered,  '  My  hand  was  hurt,  and  I  couldn't  kill 
any  more?  I  asked  him  why  he  killed  them  ?  and  he  answered, 
*  Why  did  they  send  me  to  State  Prison  when  I  wasn't  guilty? 
And  in  making  this  reply  he  trembled,  and  I  thought  he  was  going 
to  weep.  I  told  him  they  would  hang  him  now  ;  he  showed  no 
feeling." 

Dr.  FOSGATE  says  that  Dr.  Hurd  asked  him  what  he  killed  those 
folks  for?  He  replied,  "  They  put  me  in  prison?' 

JOHN  K.  HOPKINS  says,  "  I  turned  his  attention  to  the  idea  of 
pay — if  he  had  got  his  pay  for  his  time  in  prison  ?  That  question 
raised  him  up,  and  he  looked  comparatively  intelligent,  and  bright- 
ened up  his  whole  countenance.  He  said  '  No?  Who  ought  to 
pay  you  ?  '  All  of  them?  Ought  I  ?  He  looked  up  with  a  flash 
of  intelligence,  said  nothing,  but  looked  intently  at  me,  and  the 
answer  was  conveyed  by  the  look.  I  asked  if  this  man,  (point- 
ing to  Hotchkiss)  ought  to  pay  him?  He  looked  at  him,  as 
at  me,  and  said,  '  Do  what's  right?  or  '  <wdll  do  what's  right?  We 
then  spoke  about  his  trial,  and  he  was  stupid  and  dull  again." 

The  Rev.  J.  M.  AUSTIN  says :  "  I  put  questions  to  find  his  motive 
for  killing  that  family.  His  answers  were  very  broken  and  in- 
coherent, but  invariably  referred  to  his  being  in  prison  innocently. 
Had  the  persons  you  killed,  anything  to  do  with  putting  you  into 
prison  ?  '  No?  Did  you  know  their  names  ?  '  No?  Why  did 
you  kill  that  particular  family  ?  No  direct  answer,  but  something 


456  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

about  being  put  in  prison  wrongfully.  Do  you  think  it  right  to 
kill  people  who  had  no  hand  in  putting  you  in  prison  ?  He  gave 
an  incoherent  reply.  I  gathered,  '  shall  do  something  to  get  my 
pay.1  How  much  pay  ought  you  to  have  ?  '  Don't  know.1  "Was 
it  right  to  kill  those  innocent  persons  for  what  had  been  done  by 
others  ?  '  They  put  me  in  prison.1  Who  did — The  Yan  Nest 
Family  ?  '  No.'  Why  then  did  you  kill  them  ?  Did  you  think  it 
right  to  kill  that  innocent  child  ?  I  understood  from  his  gestures 
in  reply,  that  he  was  in  a  labyrinth,  from  which  he  was  incapable 
of  extricating  himself.  How  did  you  happen  to  go  that  particular 
night  ?  '  The  time  had  come.1  Why  did  you  enter  that  particular 
house?  ' I went  along  out  and  thought  I  might  begin  there1  I 
asked  if  he  ever  called  on  Mrs.  Godfrey.  He  said, '  I  went  to  Mrs. 
Godfrey  to  get  pay ',  and  she  wouldn't  pay  me.  I  went  to  Esquires 
Bostwick  and  Paine  and  they  wouldrtt  do  nothing  about  it11 

Mr.  IEA  CURTIS,  says :  "  I  asked  him  how  he  came  up  there.  '  I 
went  up  south  a  piece1  How  far?  '  Stopped  at  the  house  beyond 
there.'  What  for?  '  To  get  a  drink  of  water1  What  did  you  go 
into  Yan  Nest's  house  for  ?  '  Don't  know.1  Did  you  go  in  to 
murder  or  kill  them  ?  '  Don't  know.1  Was  it  for  money  ?  '  Didrit 
know  as  they  had  any1  Did  you  kill  the  child  ?  '  They  said  I 
killed  one,  but  I  didn't.  What  did  you  kill  them  for  ?  '  You 
know  I  had  my  work  to  do.1  Had  you  anything  against  these 
people  ?  '  Don't  know.'  Why  didn't  you  commence  at  the  other 
place?  'Thought  it  wasrit  time  yet1  He  said,  lthey  wouldn't 
pay  him.  He  had  been  imprisoned  and  they  wouldn't  pay  him.1 " 

Dr.  HEEMANCE  says :  "  Dr.  Pitney  asked  him  how  he  happened 
to  go  up.  '  ft  rained  and  I  thought  it  would  be  a  good  time1 
Why  did  you  go  to  Yan  Nest's,  and  not  to  some  other  family  ?  No 
answer.  Why  didn't  you  come  and  kill  me  ?  He  smiled  but  gave 
no  answer.  Don't  you  think  you  ought  to  be  hung  for  killing  Yan 
Nest  and  his  family  ?  The  same  question  was  repeated  authori- 
tatively, and  he  replied :  '  Sent  to  prison  for  nothing — ought  I  to 
be  hung  T  Suppose  you  had  found  some  other  person,  would  you 
have  killed  any  other  as  well  as  Yan  Nest  ?  '  Yes.1  I  asked  why 
did  you  kill  Yan  Nest  and  his  family  ?  '  For  that  horse1  What 
do  you  mean  by  killing  lfor  that  horse  V  '  They  sent  me  to  prison 
and  they  won1 1  pay  me.1  Had  Yan  Nest  anything  to  do  with  send- 
ing you  to  prison  ?  '  No.1 " 

Dr.  BKIGGS  says :  "  When  I  repeated  the  question,  why  did  you 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN".  457 

kill  Yan  Nest?  he  replied,  '  Why  was  I  put  in  prison  for  five 
years?'" 

WILLIAM  P.  SMITH,  asked :  "  Why  did  you  kill  those  people  ? 
1  I've  been  to  prison  wrongfully  Jive  years.  They  wouldn't  pay  me. 
Who?  '  The  people,  so  I  thought  Fd  kill  somebody.1  Did  you 
mean  to  kill  one,  more  than  another?  '.ZVo.'  Why  did  you  go  so 
far  out  of  town  ?  '  Stopped  at  one  place  this  side ;  wouldn't  go 
in — couldn't  see  to  fight,  'twas  dark,  looked  up  street,  saw  alight  in 
next  house,  thought  I'd  go  there,  could  see  to  fight?  Don't  you 
know  you've  done  wrong?  ''No'  Don't  you  think  'twas  wrong 
to  kill  the  child?  After  some  hesitation,  he  said,  '  Well — that 
looks  kind  o'h-a-r-d.'  Why  did  you  think  it  was  right?  l  I've 
been  in  prison  five  years  for  stealing  a  horse,  and  I  didn't  do  it ; 
and  the  people  won't  pay  me — made  up  my  mind,  ought  to  kill 
somebody.''  Are  you  not  sorry  ?  ' No'  How  much  pay  do  you 
want  ?  '  Don't  know — good  deal.'  If  I  count  you  out  a  hundred 
dollars,  would  that  be  enough  ?  He  thought  it  wouldn't.  How 
much  would  be  right  ?  '  Don't  know.'  He  brightened  up,  and 
finally  said  he  thought  '  about  a  thousand  dollars  would  be  about 
right.'" 

It  would  be  tedious  to  gather  all  the  evidence  of  similar  import. 
Let  it  suffice,  that  the  witnesses  who  have  conversed  with  the 
prisoner,  as  well  those  for  the  people  as  those  for  him,  concur 
fully  in  the  same  statement  of  facts,  as  to  his  reasons  and  motives 
for  the  murders.  We  have  thus  not  merely  established  the  exist- 
ence of  an  insane  delusion,  but  have  traced  directly  to  that  over- 
powering delusion,  the  crimes  which  the  prisoner  has  committed. 

How  powerful  that  delusion  must  have  been,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  the  prisoner,  when  disabled,  desisted  from  his 
work,  and  made  his  retreat  to  his  friends  in  Oswego  county,  not 
to  escape  from  punishment  for  the  murders,  but,  as  he  told  Mr. 
E.  A.  WARDED,  to  wait  till  his  wounded  hand  should  be  restored, 
that  he  might  resume  his  dreadful  butchery ;  and,  as  he  told 
Dr.  BIGELOW,  because  he  couldn't  "  handle  his  hand."  The  in- 
tenseness  of  this  delusion  exceeds  that  under  which  Hatfield  as- 
sailed the  king ;  that  which  compelled  Henriette  Cornier  to  dissever 
the  head  of  the  child  entrusted  to  her  care  ;  and  that  of  Eabello, 
the  Portuguese,  who  cut  to  pieces  with  his  axe  the  child  who  trod 
upon  his  feet. 

The  next  feature  in  the  cause  which  will  claim  your  attention, 


4:58  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is  the  MANNER  AND  CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  THE 
ACT  ITSELF. 

In  Kay's  Medical  Jurisprudence,  at  page  224,  are  given  several 
tests  by  which  to  distinguish  between  the  homicidal  maniac  and 
the  murderer. 

"We  shall  best  consider  the  present  case  by  comparing  it  with 
those  tests : 

I.  "  There  is  the  it-resistible  motiveless  impulse  to  destroy  life." 
Never  was  homicide  more  motiveless,  or  the  impulse  more  com- 
pletely irresistible,  than  in  the  present  case,  as  we  have  learned 
from  the  testimony  already  cited. 

II.  "  In  nearly  all  cases,  the  criminal  act  has  been  preceded, 
either  by  some  well  marked  disturbance  of  the  health,  or  by  an 
irritable,  gloomy,  dejected,  or  melancholy  state  ;  in  short,  by  many 
of  the  symptoms  of  the  incubation  of  mania."     How  truly  does 
this  language  describe  the  condition  of  the  prisoner  during  the 
brief  period  of  his  enlargement ! 

III.  "  The  impulse  to  destroy  is  powerfully  excited  by  the  sight 
of  murderous  weapons — by  favorable  opportunities  of  accomplish- 
ing the  act — by  contradiction,  disgust,  or  some  other  equally  trivial 
and  even  imaginary  circumstance." 

While  we  learn  from  HERSEY'S  testimony,  that  the  prisoner  kept 
a  store  of  knives  fit  for  such  a  deed,  we  find  in  the  denial  of  his 
demands  for  settlement,  for  pay,  and  for  process,  by  Mrs.  GOD- 
FREY, and  the  magistrates,  the  contradiction  and  causes  of  disgust 
here  described. 

IV.  "  The  victims  of  the  homicidal  monomaniac  are  either  en- 
tirely unknown  or  indifferent  to  him,  or  they  are  amongst  his 
most  loved  and  cherished  objects." 

Freeman  passed  by  his  supposed  oppressors  and  persecutors,  and 
fell  upon  a  family  absolutely  indifferent,  and  almost  unknown  to 
him,  while  he  reserved  the  final  stroke  for  his  nearest  and  best 
friend,  and  brother-in-law. 

Y.  "  The  monomaniac  sometimes  diligently  conceals  and  some- 
times avows  his  purpose,  and  forms  schemes  for  putting  it  into 
execution,  testifying  no  sentiment  of  grief." 

The  prisoner  concealed  his  purpose  from  all  but  HERSEY.  He 
purchased  the  knife  which  he  used,  in  open  day,  at  a  blacksmith's 
shop,  in  the  presence  of  persons  to  whom  he  was  well  known,  and 
ground  it  to  its  double  edge  before  unsuspecting  witnessess,  as 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  459 

coolly  and  deliberately  as  if  it  were  to  be  employed  in  the  sham- 
bles. He  applied  at  another  blacksmith's  shop  where  he  was 
equally  well  known,  to  have  another  instrument  made.  He  shaped 
the  pattern  in  a  carpenter's  shop,  carried  it  to  the  smith,  disagreed 
about  the  price,  and  left  the  pattern  upon  the  forge,  in  open  sight, 
never  thinking  to  reclaim  it,  and  it  lay  there  until  it  was  taken  by 
the  smith  before  the  coroner's  inquest,  as  an  evidence  of  his  design. 
So  strange  was  his  conduct,  and  so  mysterious  the  form  of  the 
knife  which  he  required,  that  MOKRIS,  the  smith,  suspected  him, 
and  told  him  that  he  was  going  to  Mil  somebody  /  to  Which  he 
answered  with  the  nonchalance  of  the  butcher,  "  thafs  nothing  to 
you  if  you  get  your  pay  for  the  knife"  On  the  two  days  imme- 
diately preceding  the  murder,  he  is  found  sharpening  and  adjust- 
ing his  knives  at  a  turner's  shop,  next  door  to  his  own  dwelling, 
in  the  presence  of  persons  to  whom  he  is  well  known,  manifesting 
no  apprehension,  and  affecting  no  concealment. 

The  trivial  concerns  of  his  finances  and  occupation  are  as  care- 
fully attended  to,  as  if  the  murder  he  was  contemplating  had  been 
an  ordinary  and  lawful  transaction.  HYATT  demands  three  shil- 
lings for  the  knife.  The  prisoner  cheapens  until  the  price  is  re- 
duced to  eighteen  pence,  with  the  further  advantages  that  it  shall 
be  sharpened  and  fitted  to  a  handle.  Hyatt  demands  sixpence 
for  putting  a  rivet  into  his  knife.  He  compromises,  and  agrees 
to  divide  the  labor  and  pay  half  the  price.  He  deliberately  takes 
out  his  wallet  and  lays  down  three  cents  for  Simpson  the  turner, 
for  the  use  of  the  grindstone.  On  the  very  day  of  the  murder  he 
begs  some  grease  at  the  soap  factory  to  soften  his  shoes,  and  tells 
AARON  DEMUN  that  he  is  going  into  the  country  to  live  in  peace. 
At  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  he  buys  soap  at  the  merchant's 
for  MARY  ANN  NEWARK,  the  poor  woman  at  whose  house  he  lived. 
He  then  goes  cautiously  to  his  room,  takes  the  knives  from  the 
place  of  their  concealment  under  his  bed,  throws  them  out  of  the 
window  to  avoid  exposure  to  her  observation,  and  when  the  night 
has  come,  and  the  bells  are  ringing  for  church,  and  all  is  ready, 
he  stops  to  ask  the  woman  whether  there  is  any  chore  to  be  done. 
She  tells  him,  none,  but  to  fill  the  tub  with  snow.  He  does  it,  as 
carefully  as  if  there  were  no  commotion  in  his  mind,  and  then  sal- 
lies forth,  takes  up  his  instruments,  and  proceeds  on  his  errand  of 
death.  He  reconnoiters  the  house  on  the  north  of  Yan  Nest's, 
Van  Nest's  house,  and  Brook's  house  on  the  south,  and  finally  de- 


460  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

cides  upon  the  middle  one  as  the  place  of  assault.  It  does  not  af- 
fect his  purpose  that  he  meets  Mr.  Cox  and  Mr.  PATTEN,  under  a 
broad  bright  moonlight.  He  waits  his  opportunity,  until  William- 
son, the  visitor,  has  departed,  and  Yan  Arsdale,  the  laboring  man, 
has  retired  to  rest.  "With  an  energy  and  boldness  that  no  sane 
man,  with  such  a  purpose,  could  possess,  he  mortally  stabs  four 
persons,  and  dangerously  wounds  a  fifth,  in  the  incredibly  short 
space  of  five  minutes.  Disabled,  and  therefore  desisting  from 
further  destruction,  he  enters  the  stable,  takes  the  first  horse  he 
finds,  mounts  him  without  a  saddle,  and  guiding  him  by  a  halter, 
dashes  toward  the  town.  He  overtakes  and  passes  Williamson, 
the  visitor,  within  the  distance  of  three-fourths  of  a  mile  from  the 
house  which  he  had  left  in  supposed  security.  Pressing  on,  the 
jaded  beast,  worn  out  with  age,  stumbles  and  brings  him  to  the 
ground.  He  plunges  his  knife  into  the  breast  of  the  horse,  aban- 
dons him,  scours  forward  through  the  town,  across  the  bridge  and 
on  the  middle  road  to  Burrington's ;  there  seizes  another  horse, 
mounts  him,  and  presses  forward,  until  he  arrives  among  his  rela- 
tions, the  Depuys,  at  Schroappel,  thirty  miles  distant.  They,  sus- 
pecting him  to  have  stolen  the  horse,  refuse  to  entertain  him.  He 
proceeds  to  the  adjoining  village,  rests  from  his  flight,  offers  the 
horse  for  sale,  and  when  his  title  to  the  horse  is  questioned,  an- 
nounces his  true  name  and  residence,  and  refers  to  the  Depuys, 
who  had  just  cast  him  off,  for  proof  of  his  good  character  and 
conduct.  When  arrested  and  charged  with  the  murder,  he  denies 
the  act. 

Now  the  SIXTH  test  given  by  Ray  is,  that  "  while  most  maniacs 
having  gratified  their  propensity  to  kill,  voluntarily  confess  the 
act,  and  quietly  give  themselves  up  to  the  proper  authorities,  a 
very  few  only,  and  those  to  an  intelligent  observer,  show  the 
strongest  indications  of  insanity,  fly,  and  persist  in  denying  the 
act." 

VH.  "  Murder  is  never  criminally  committed  without  some 
motive  adequate  to  the  purpose  in  the  mind  that  is  actuated  by  it, 
while  the  insane  man  commits  the  crime  without  any  motive 
whatever,  strictly  deserving  the  name." 

VIII.  "  The  criminal  never  sheds  more  blood  than  is  necessary 
for  the  attainment  of  his  object.    The  monomaniac  often  sacrifices 
all  within  his  reach  to  the  cravings  of  his  murderous  propensity." 

IX.  The  criminal  either  denies  or  confesses  his  guilt ;  if  the 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  461 

latter,  lie  sues  for  mercy,  or  glories  in  his  crimes.  On  the  contra- 
ry, the  maniac,  after  gratifying  his  bloody  desires,  testifies  neither 
remorse,  repentance,  nor  satisfaction." 

X.  "  The  criminal  has  accomplices,  the  maniac  has  none." 

XI.  "  The  murderer  never  conceives  a  design  to  murder  with- 
out projecting  a  plan  for  concealing  his  victim,  effecting  his  es- 
cape, and  baffling  pursuit.     The  maniac  prepares  the  means  of 
committing  the  crime  with  calmness  and  deliberation,  but  never 
dreams  of  the  necessity  of  concealing  it  when  done,  or  of  escape, 
until  his  victim  lies  at  his  feet." 

Dr.  BIGELOW  and  others  state  that  the  prisoner  told  them,  as  ob- 
viously was  the  case,  that  he  sought  no  plunder,  that  he  thought 
not  of  escape  or  flight,  until  his  things  were  broken,  and  his  hand 
was  cut,  so  that  he  could  not  continue  his  work.  He  seized  the 
nearest  and  the  most  worthless  horse  in  the  stable,  leaving  two  fleet 
animals  remaining  in  their  stalls.  He  thought  only  of  taking 
Burrington's  horse,  when  the  first  failed ;  all  he  cared  for  was  to 
get  out  of  the  county,  there  to  rest,  until  his  hand  was  cured,  so 
that  he  could  come  back  and  do  more  work.  He  rested  from 
flight  within  thirty  miles  from  the  scene  of  his  crimes,  and  in  sell- 
ing his  horse,  was  depriving  himself  of  the  only  means  of  making 
his  escape  successful.  "When  the  person  of  Yan  j^est  was  exam- 
ined, his  wratch,  pocket-book,  money,  and  trinkets,  were  found  all 
undisturbed.  Kot  an  article  in  the  house  had  been  removed,  and 
when  the  prisoner  was  searched  upon  his  arrest,  there  was  found 
in  his  pockets  nothing  but  one  copper  coin,  the  one  hundredth 
part  of  a  dollar. 

"Without  further  detail,  the  parallel  between  the  prisoner  and 
the  tests  of  madness  established  by  medical  jurisprudence,  is  com- 
plete. 

It  remains,  gentlemen,  to  conclude  the  demonstration  of  the 
prisoner's  insanity,  by  referring  to  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses 
who  have  given  their  opinions  on  that  question.  CORNELIUS  VAN 
AESDALE  and  HELEN  HOLMES,  the  survivors  of  the  dreadful  scene 
at  Van  Nest's  house,  did  not  think  the  prisoner  insane.  The  latter 
had  only  seen  him  for  a  moment,  during  the  previous  week,  when 
he  called  there  and  asked  for  work.  The  former  had  never  seen 
him  before  that  fatal  night.  Both  saw  him  there,  only  for  a  mo- 
ment, and  under  circumstances  exhibiting  him  as  a  ruthless  mur 
derer. 

VOL.  1—30. 


462  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

WILLIAMSON  thinks  he  was  not  insane,  but  he  saw  the  prisoner  only  when  he  swept 
past  him,  fleeing  from  his  crime. 

JAMES  AMOS,  ALONZO  TAYLOR,  GEORGE  BURRINGTON,  and  GEORGE  B.  PARKER,- say 
they  read  no  indications  of  insanity  in  his  conduct  when  arrested  ;  but  neither  of  them 
ever  saw  him  before,  or  has  seen  him  since. 

ROBERT  SIMPSON,  the  turner,  GEORGE  W.  HYATT  and  JOSEPH  MORRIS,  the  blacksmiths, 
did  not  suspect  him  to  be  insane,  when  he  purchased  and  sharpened  his  knives.  Neither 
of  them  ever  knew  him  before,  or  lias  known  him  since. 

NATHANIEL  LYNCH,  though  he  furnishes  abundant  evidence  of  the  prisoner's  insanity, 
is  himself  unconvinced. 

AARON  DEMUN,  a  colored  man,  does  not  think  him  insane,  but  stands  alone,  of  all  who 
knew  him  in  his  youth. 

ISRAEL  G.  WOOD  and  STEPHEN  S.  AUSTIN  do  not  think  him  insnne.  They  were  his 
jailers  six  years  ago,  but  they  have  not  examined  him  since  his  arrest. 

VANDERHEYDEN  and  MONROE  think  him  sane,  but  each  testifies  under  feelings  which 
disqualify  him  for  impartiality. 

JONAS  BROWN  thinks  him  not  insane,  but  never  saw  him,  except  when  he  was  buying 
a  pound  of  soap  at  his  store. 

JOHN  P.  HULBERT,  and  BENJAMIN  F.  HALL,  had  brief  conversations  with  him  in  the  jail, 
after  his  arrest,  but  made  no  examination  concerning  his  delusion. 

LEWIS  MARKHAM  and  DANIEL  ANDRUS  think  him  not  insane,  but  they  have  made  no 
examination  of  the  subject ;  while  both  give  evidence  that  he  was  once  as  bright,  active, 
and  cheerful,  as  he  is  now  stupid,  senseless,  and  imbecile. 

BENJ.  VANKEUREN,  ARETAS  A.  SABIN,  SILAS  E.  BAKER,  and  JAMES  E.  TYLER,  all  keepers 
in  the  State  Prison,  and  ALONZO  WOOD,  the  Chaplain,  did  not  suspect  him  of  insanity  in 
the  State  Prison. 

Their  conduct  towards  him  while  there,  proves  their  sincerity ; 
but  his  history  under  their  treatment  will  enable  you  to  correct 
their  erroneous  judgments.  It  was  their  business,  not  to  detect 
and  cure  insanity,  but  to  prescribe  his  daily  task,  and  to  compel 
him  by  stripes  to  perform  it  in  silence. 

MICHAEL  S.  MEYERS,  the  former  District  Attorney,  who  prosecuted  the  prisoner  for 
stealing  the  horse,  looks  at  him  now,  and  can  see  no  change  in  his  personal  appearance ; 
but  he  has  never  thought  the  subject  worthy  of  an  examination,  and  has  not  in  six  years 
spoken  with,  or  thought  of  the  accused. 

LYMAN  PAINE,  and  JAMES  H.  BOSTWICK,  to  whom  he  applied  for  process,  continue  now 
as  well  convinced  of  the  prisoner's  sanity,  as  they  were  when  he  applied  to  them  for 
warrants,  which  it  was  absurd  for  him  to  ask.  Neither  of  them  has  examined  him  since 
his  arrest,  or  stopped  to  compare  his  conduct  in  the  murder  with  his  application  for  a 
wan-ant,  or  with  the  strange  delusion  which  brought  him  before  them. 

Such  and  so  feeble  is  the  testimony  as  to  the  prisoner's  sanity, 
given  by  others  than  the  medical  witnesses.  Nor  is  the  testimony 
of  the  medical  witnesses  on  the  part  of  the  people  entitled  to 
more  respect. 

Dr.  GILMORE  pronounces  a  confident  opinion  that  the  prisoner  is  sane ;  but  the  witness 
is  without  experience,  or  any  considerable  learning  on  that  subject,  and  his  opinion  ia 
grounded  upon  the  fact,  that  the  accused  had  intellect  enough  to  prepare  for  his  crime, 
and  sense  enough  to  make  his  escape,  in  the  manner  so  often  described.  I  read  to  the 
Doctor  the  accounts  of  several  cases  in  Bedlam,  and  without  exception  he  pronounced 
the  madmen,  sane  criminals. 

Dr.  HYDE  visited  the  prisoner  twice  in  his  cell,  perhaps  thirty  minutes  each  time,  and 
as  the  result  of  those  visits,  says  he  was  rather  of  the  opinion  that  he  was  sane.  Dr. 
HYDE  expressly  disavows  any  learning  or  experience  on  the  subject  of  insanity,  and  does 
not  give  the  details  of  his  examinatioa 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  463 

Dr.  DAVID  DIMON  visited  the  prisoner  several  times  in  jail,  but  could  not  discover  any- 
thing that  he  could  call  insanity.  He  thinks  there  can  be  no  insane  delusion  in  this  case, 
because  he  thinks  that  an  insane  delusion  is  the  thorough  conviction  of  the  reality  of  a 
thing,  which  is  opposed  by  the  evidence  of  the  sufferer's  senses.  The  Doctor  claims  nei- 
ther study  nor  experience  ;  pronounces  the  prisoner  to  be  of  a  grade  of  intellect  rather 
small  for  a  negro;  thinks  he  has  not  as  much  intellect  as  a  child  of  fourteen  years  of 
age,  and  in  regard  to  knowledge,  would  compare  him  with  a  child  two  or  three  years  old, 
who  knows  his  A,  B,  C,  but  cannot  count  twenty-eight. 

Those  who  seek  the  extreme  vengeance  of  the  law,  will,  if  suc- 
cessful, need  all  the  consolation  to  be  derived  from  the  sanity  of 
the  accused,  if,  at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  he  be  thus  imbecile  in 
mind  and  barren  in  knowledge. 

Dr.  JEDEDIAII  DARROW  has  read  nothing  on  the  subject  of  insanity  for  forty  years,  and 
has  never  had  any  experience.  He  declares  that  his  conclusion  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
a  professional  opinion.  He  talked  with  the  prisoner  once  in  jail,  to  ascertain  his  sanity 
and  thought  it  important  to  avoid  all  allusion  to  the  crimes  he  had  committed,  their  mo- 
tives, causes,  and  circumstances.  He  noiu  thinks  that  it  would  have  been  wise,  where 
monomania  was  suspected,  to  have  examined  into  the  alleged  delusion.  He  contents  himself 
with  saying,  he  did  not  discover  insanity. 

Dr.  JOSEPH  L.  CLARY  visited  the  prisoner  in  jail :  cannot  give  a  decided  opinion  ;  his 
prevailing  impression  is,  that  the  prisoner  is  not  insane,  but  he  has  not  had  opportunities 
enough  to  form  a  correct  opinion.  He  has  never  seen  a  case  of  Dementia,  and  knows  it 
only  from  definitions  in  books,  which  he  has  never  tested. 

Dr.  BIGELOW,  Physician  to  the  prison,  discovered  nothing  in  his  examinations  which  led 
him  to  suspect  insanity.  The  Doctor  has  a  salary  of  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum  ; 
his  chief  labor  in  regard  to  insanity  is  to  detect  counterfeits  in  the  prison  ;  and  although 
he  admits  that  the  prisoner  has  answered  him  freely,  and  unsuspectingly,  and  fully,  he 
accounts  for  the  condition  of  his  mind,  by  saying  that  he  regards  him  "  as  an  ignorant,  dull, 
stupid,  degraded,  debased,  and  morose,  but  not  insane  person." 

Dr.  SYLVESTER  WILLARD,  without  particular  experience  or  learn- 
ing in  this  branch,  concurs  in  these  opinions. 

Dr.  THOMAS  C.  SPENCER,  Professor  in  the  Medical  College  at 
Geneva,  brings  up  the  rear  of  the  People's  witnesses.  I  complain 
of  his  testimony,  that  it  was  covered  by  a  masked  battery.  The 
District  Attorney  opened  the  cause  with  denunciations  of  scientific 
men,  said  that  too  much  learning  made  men  mad,  and  warned  you 
therefore  against  the  educated  men  who  might  testify  for  the  pris- 
oner. I  thought  at  the  time  that  these  were  extraordinary  opin- 
ions. I  had  read 

A  little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing, 
Drink  deep  or  taste  not  the  Pierian  Spring: 
Those  shallow  drafts  intoxicate  the  brain, 
But  drinking  largely  sobers  us  again." 

What  was  my  surprise  to  find  that  all  these  denunciations 
against  learning  and  experience,  made  by  the  counsel  for  the  peo- 
ple, were  only  a  cover  for  Dr.  SPENCER. 

He  heralds  himself  as  accustomed  to  teach,  and  informs  us  that 
he  has  visited  the  principal  hospitals  for  the  insane  in  London, 
Paris,  and  other  European  capitals.  How  unfortunate  it  was  that 


464  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

on  his  cross-examination,  he  could  not  give  the  name  or  location  of 
any  asylum  in  either  of  those  cities !  Even  the  names  and 
locations  of  the  "  Charenton"  and  "  Bicetre"  had  escaped  his 
memory. 

But  it  is  no  matter.  The  doctor  overwhelms  us  with  learning, 
universal  and  incomprehensible.  Here  is  his  own  map*  of  the  men- 
tal faculties,  in  which  twenty-eight  separate  powers  of  mind  are 
described  in  odd  and  even  numbers. 

The  arrows  show  the  course  of  ideas  through  the  mind.  They 
begin  with  the  motives  in  the  region  of  the  highest  odd  numbers 
in  the  southwest  corner  of  the  mind,  marked  A.,  and  go  perpen- 
dicularly northward,  through  Thirst  and  Hunger  to  Sensation, 
marked  B.  ;  then  turn  to  the  right,  and  go  eastward,  through  Con- 
ception, to  Attention,  marked  C.,  and  then  descend  southward, 
through  Perception,  Memory,  Understanding,  Comparison,  Com- 
bination, Reason,  Invention,  and  Judgment,  wheel  to  the  left  un- 
der the  Will,  marked  D.,  and  pass  through  Conscience,  and  then 
to  V.,  the  unascertained  centre  of  Sensation,  Volition,  and  Will. 
This  is  the  natural  turnpike  road  for  the  ideas  when  we  are  awake 
and  sane.  But  here  is  an  open  shun-pike  X.  Y.  Z.,  on  which  Ideas, 
when  we  are  asleep  or  insane,  start  off  and  pass  by  Conscience, 
and  so  avoid  paying  toll  to  that  inflexible  gate-keeper.  Now  all 
this  is  very  well,  but  I  called  on  the  doctor  to  show  how  the  fugi- 
tive idea  reached  the  will  at  D.,  after  going  to  the  end  of  the  shun- 
pike.  It  appeared  there  was  no  other  way  but  to  dart  back  again, 
over  the  shun-pike,  or  else  to  go  cringing,  at  last,  through  the  iron 
gate  of  Conscience. 

Then  there  was  another  difficulty.  The  doctor  forgot  the  most 
important  point  on  his  own  map,  and  could  not  tell  from  memory 
where  he  had  located  "  the  unascertained  centre" 

The  doctor  pronounces  the  prisoner  sane  because  he  has  the 
chief  intellectual  faculties,  Sensation,  Conception,  Attention,  Ima- 
gination, and  Association.  Now,  here  is  a  delicate  piece  of  wooden 
cutlery,  fabricated  by  an  inmate  of  the  lunatic  asylum  at  Utica, 
who  was  acquitted  of  murder  on  the  ground  of  insanity.  He  who 
fabricated  it  evinced  in  the  manufacture,  Conception,  Perception, 
Memory,  Comparison,  Attention,  Adaptation,  Co-ordination,  Kind- 
ness, Gratitude,  Mechanical  Skill,  Invention,  and  Pride.  It  is 
well  for  him  that  Dr.  SPENCER  did  not  testify  on  his  trial. 

*  See  next  p:ige. 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN. 


465 


SPENCEE'S  INTELLECTUAL  CHAET. 

THE  BRAIN,  LITTLE  BRAIN,  SPINAL   MARROW  AND   NERVES, 

Are  the  Instruments  or  Media  connecting  the  Mind  with  Material  Things,  and 

are  the  seat  of  Disease  in  Insanity. 

THREE   CLASSES THIRTY-SIX   FACULTIES. 


I.  Involuntary  Faculties. 
Actions  or  Feelings  of  Mind. 


II.  Intermediate 
Faculties. 


III.  Voluntary 
Faculties. 


1  Sensation. 

—  i-     31  Conception. 

—i-       2  Attention. 

tiB 

1     1    * 

<m 

|    3  Hunger. 

32  Imagination. 

4  Perception. 

ti 

1     1 

u 

5  Thirst. 

33  Association. 

6  Memory. 

co 

7 

— 
y. 

8 

9 

J 

10 

11 

j 

12 

a 

13 

rr 

14 

§ 

15 

r 

16 

5- 

CD 

17 

£. 

18 

CO 

19 

a 

20 

o 

21 

§ 

22 

5 

23 

T" 

24 

— 

25 

| 

26 

S 

3 

27 

S; 

28 

466  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    FOREGOING    CHART 

7  Love  of  society.  8  Understanding. 

9        "        children.  10  Comparison. 

11        "        money.  12  Combination. 

13        "        combat  14  Reason. 

15        "        fame.  1C  Invention. 

17        "        Nature's  laws.  18  Judgment. 

19        "        Divine  things,  20  Sense  of  justice. 

21   Revenge,       ~l  22  Pleasure  in  right. 

23  Anger,  I  And  other  passions,  pro-  24  Horror  of  wrong  acts. 

25  Joy,     Hope,  f   pensities  and  motives.  26  Intention,  Co-ordination. 

27  Fear,  28  Other  volitions,  mental  and  moral. 

V.  Unascertained  centre  of  Thought,  Sen-  V.  A.  B.  C.  D.  Union  of  all  the   Mental 
sation,  and  Volition.  Faculties,  as  if  by  electric  wires,  as 

X.  Y.  Z.  Dreaming  or  insane  road  of  Thought  one  whole, 

around  Conscience  and  Will. 

Opposed  to  these  vague  and  unsatisfactory  opinions  is  the  evi- 
dence of  SALLY  FREEMAN,  the  prisoner's  mother,  who  knew  him 
better  than  any  other  one ;  of  JOHN  DEPUY,  his  brother-in-law  and 
intimate  friend ;  of  ETHAN  A.  WARDEN,  his  employer  in  early 
youth ;  of  DEBORAH  DEPUY,  his  associate  in  happier  days ;  of  ADAM 
GRAY,  who  knew  him  in  childhood,  and  sheltered  him  on  his  dis- 
charge from  the  state  prison  ;  of  IRA  CURTIS,  in  whose  family  he 
resided  seven  years  ago ;  of  DAVID  WINNER,  the  friend  of  his 
parents;  of  EGBERT  FREEMAN,  his  ancient  fellow-servant  at  the 
American  Hotel ;  of  JOHN  R.  HOPKINS,  an  intelligent  and  practical 
man,  who  examined  him  in  the  jail ;  of  THERON  R.  GREEN,  who 
discovered  his  insanity  in  the  state  prison ;  of  the  Rev.  JOHN  M. 
AUSTIN,  the  one  good  Samaritan  who  deemed  it  a  pastoral  duty  to 
visit  even  a  supposed  murderer  in  prison  ;  of  WILLIAM  P.  SMITH, 
who  has  corrected  now  the  error  of  his  judgment  while  in  the 
state  prison ;  of  PHTLO  H.  PERRY,  a  candid  and  enlightened  observer, 
and  of  WARREN  T.  WORDEN,  Esq.,  a  lawyer  of  great  shrewdness 
and  sagacity. 

Then  there  is  an  overwhelming  preponderance  of  medical  testi- 
mony. The  witnesses  are,  Dr.  VAN  EPPS,  who  has  followed  the 
accused  from  his  cradle  to  the  present  hour,  with  the  interest  of  a 
humane  and  sincere  friend ;  Dr.  FOSGATE,  who  attended  him  in  the 
jail  for  the  cure  of  his  disabled  limb  ;  Dr.  BRIGGS,  equal  in  public 
honors  to  Dr.  BIGELOW,  and  greatly  his  superior  in  candor  as  well 
as  learning,  and  who  compares  the  prisoner  now  with  what  he  was 
in  better  days ;  Dr.  MCNAUGHTON,  of  Albany,  and  Dr.  HUN,  of  the 
same  place,  gentlemen  known  throughout  the  whole  country  for 
eminence  in  their  profession ;  Dr.  McCALL,  of  Utica,  President  of 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  467 

the  Medical  Society  of  the  State  of  New  York ;  Dr.  COVENTRY, 
Professor  of  Medical  Jurisprudence  in  Geneva  College,  and  one 
of  the  managers  of  the  State  Lunatic  Asylum  at  Utica  ;  and  Dr. 
BRIGHAM,  the  experienced  and  distinguished  Superintendent  of 
that  institution.  This  last  gentleman,  after  reviewing  the  whole 
case,  declares  that  he  has  no  doubt  that  the  prisoner  is  now  insane, 
and  was  so  when  his  crimes  were  committed ;  that  he  should  have 
received  him  as  a  patient  then,  on  the  evidence  given  here,  inde- 
pendently of  the  crime,  and  should  now  receive  him  upon  all  the 
evidence  which  has  been  submitted  to  you. 

Dr.  BKIGHAM  pronounces  the  prisoner  to  have  been  a  monomaniac 
laboring  under  the  overwhelming  progress  of  the  delusion  I  have 
described,  which  had  its,  paroxysm  in  the  murders  of  which  he  is 
accused ;  and  declares  that  since  that  time  he  has  sunk  into  a  deep 
and  incurable  dementia,  the  counter-part  of  idiocy.  In  these  opi- 
nions, and  in  the  reasons  for  them  so  luminously  assigned  by  him, 
all  the  other  medical  gentlemen  concur. 

You  may  be  told,  gentlemen,  that  Dr.  HUN  and  Dr.  McNAUGH- 
TON  testified  from  mere  observation  of  the  prisoner  without  per- 
sonal examination.  Yes !  I  will  thank  the  Attorney  General  for 
saying  so.  It  will  recall  the  strangest  passages  of.  all,  in  this  the 
the  strangest  of  all  trials.  This  is  a  trial  for  MUKDEK.  A  verdict 
of  guilty  will  draw  after  it  a  sentence  of  DEATH.  The  only  defence 
is  insanity.  Insanity  is  to  be  tested  by  examining  the  prisoner  as 
he  now  is,  and  comparing  him  with  what  he  was  when  the  crime 
was  committed,  and  during  all  the  intervening  period,  and  through 
all  his  previous  life.  Dr.  HUN  and  Dr.  MCNAUGHTON  were  served 
with  subpoenas,  requiring  them  to  attend  here.  They  came,  pro- 
ceeded to  the  jail,  and  examined  the  prisoner  on  Wednesday  night 
during  the  trial.  Early  on  Thursday  morning,  they  proceeded 
again  to  the  jail  to  resume  their  examination,  and  were  then 
denied  access.  It  is  proved  that  the  attorney  general  instructed 
the  sheriff  to  close  the  doors  against  them,  and  the  attorney  general 
admits  it.  Dr.  HUN  and  Dr.  MONATJGHTON  are  called  to  testify, 
and  are  ready  to  testify  that  the  examination  they  did  make  satis- 
fied them  that  the  prisoner  is  insane  now,  and  that  he  was  insane 
when  he  committed  the  homicide.  The  attorney  general  objects, 
and  the  court  overrules  the  evidence,  and  decides  that  these  emi- 
nent physicians  shall  testify  only  from  mere  external  observation 
of  the  prisoner,  in  court,  and  shall  expressly  forget  and  lay  aside 


468  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

their  examinations  of  the  prisoner  made  in  jail,  by  conversations 
with  him.  Nor  was  the  process  by  which  the  court  effected  this 
exclusion  less  remarkable  than  the  decision  itself.  The  court  had 
obtained  a  verdict  on  the  sixth  of  July,  on  the  preliminary  issue, 
that  the  prisoner  was  sufficiently  sane  to  distinguish  right  from 
wrong.  That  verdict  has  been  neither  pleaded  nor  proved  on  this 
trial,  and  if  it  had  been,  it  would  have  been  of  no  legal  value. 
Yet  the  court  founds  upon  it  a  judicial  statute  of  limitatitms,  and 
denies  us  all  opportunity  to  prove  the  prisoner  insane,  after  the 
sixth  of  July.  I  tremble  for  the  jury  that  is  to  respond  to  the 
popular  clamor  under  such  restraints  as  these.  I  pray  God  that 
these  judges  may  never  experience  the  consequences  which  must 
follow  such  an  adjudication.  But,  gentlemen,  Dr.  HUN  and  Dr. 
MoNAtTGHTON  bear,  nevertheless,  the  strongest  testimony  that  the 
prisoner  is  an  idiot,  as  appears  by  observation,  and  that  the  evi- 
dence, as  submitted  to  them,  confirms  this  conviction. 

There  is  proof,  gentlemen,  stronger  than  all  this.  It  is  silent, 
yet  speaking.  It  is  that  idiotic  smile  which  plays  continually  on 
the  face  of  the  maniac.  It  took  its  seat  there  while  he  was  in  the 
State  Prison.  In  his  solitary  cell,  under  the  pressure  of  his  severe 
tasks  and  trials  in  the  work-shop,  and  during  the  solemnities  of 
public  worship  in  the  chapel,  it  appealed,  although  in  vain,  to  his 
task-masters  and  his  teachers.  It  is  a  smile,  never  rising  into 
laughter,  without  motive  or  cause — the  smile  of  vacuity.  His  mo- 
ther saw  it  when  he  came  out  of  prison,  and  it  broke  her  heart. 
John  Depuy  saw  it  and  knew  his  brother  was  demented.  Debo- 
rah Depuy  observed  it  and  knew  him  for  a  fool.  David  Winner 
read  in  it  the  ruin  of  his  friend,  Sally 's  son.  It  has  never  forsaken 
him  in  his  later  trials.  He  laughed  in  the  face  of  Parker,  while 
on  confession  at  Baldwinsville.  He  laughed  involuntarily  in  the 
faces  of  Warden  and  Curtis,  and  Worden  and  Austin,  and  Bige- 
low  and  Smith,  and  Brigharn  and  Spencer.  He  laughs  perpetually 
here.  Even  when  Yan  Arsdale  showed  the  scarred  traces  of  the 
assassin's  knife,  and  when  Helen  Holmes  related  the  dreadful  story 
of  the  murder  of  her  patrons  and  friends,  he  laughed.  He  laughs 
while  I  am  pleading  his  griefs.  He  laughs  when  the  Attorney 
General's  bolts  would  seem  to  rive  his  heart.  He  will  laugh  when 
you  declare  him  guilty.  When  the  Judge  shall  proceed  to  the 
last  fatal  ceremony,  and  demand  what  he  has  to  say  why  the  sen- 
tence of  the  law  should  not  be  pronounced  upon  him,  although 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  469 

there  should  not  be  an  unmoistened  eye  in  this  vast  assembly,  and 
the  stern  voice  addressing  him  should  tremble  with  emotion,  he 
will  even  then  look  up  in  the  face  of  the  court  and  laugh,  from 
the  irresistible  emotions  of  a  shattered  mind,  delighted  and  lost  in 
the  confused  memory  of  absurd  and  ridiculous  associations.  Fol- 
low him  to  the  scaifold.  The  executioner  cannot  disturb  the 
calmness  of  the  idiot.  He  will  laugh  in  the  agony  of  death.  Do 
you  not  know  the  significance  of  this  strange  and  unnatural  risibi- 
lity? It  is  a  proof  that  God  does  not  forsake  even  the  poor 
wretch  whom  we  pity  or  despise.  There  are  in  every  human  me- 
mory, a  well  of  joys  and  a  fountain  of  sorrows.  Disease  opens 
wide  the  one,  and  seals  up  the  other,  forever. 

You  have  been  told,  gentlemen,  that  this  smile  is  hereditary  and 
accustomed.  Do  you  think  that  ever  ancestor  or  parent  of  the 
prisoner,  or  even  the  poor  idiot  himself,  was  in  such  straits  as 
these  ?  How  then  can  you  think  that  this  smile  was  ever  before 
recognized  by  these  willing  witnesses  ?  That  chaotic  smile  is  the 
external  derangement  which  signifies  that  the  strings  of  the  harp 
are  disordered  and  broken,  the  superficial  mark  which  God  has 
set  upon  the  tabernacle,  to  signify  that  its  immortal  tenant  is  dis- 
turbed by  a  divine  and  mysterious  visitation.  If  you  cannot  see 
it,  take  heed  that  the  obstruction  of  your  vision  be  not  produced 
by  the  mote  in  your  own  eye,  which  you  are  commanded  to  re- 
move before  you  consider  the  beam  in  your  brother's  eye.  If 
you  are  bent  on  rejecting  the  testimony  of  those  who  know,  by 
experience  and  by  science,  the  deep  affliction  of  the  prisoner,  be- 
ware how  you  misinterpret  the  hand-writing  of  the  Almighty. 

I  have  waited  until  now,  gentlemen,  to  notice  some  animadver- 
sions of  the  counsel  for  the  people.  They  say  that  drunkenness 
will  explain  the  conduct  of  the  prisoner.  It  is  true  that  John  De- 
puy  discovered  that  those  who  retailed  poisonous  liquors  were  fur- 
nishing the  prisoner  with  this,  the  worst  of  food  for  his  madness. 
But  the  most  laborious  investigation  has  resulted  in  showing,  by 
the  testimony  of  Adam  Gray,  that  he  once  saw  the  prisoner  intoxi- 
cated, and  that  he,  with  some  other  person,  drank  spirits  in  not 
immoderate  quantity,  on  the  day  when  Yan  Nest  was  slain. 
There  is  no  other  evidence  that  the  prisoner  was  ever  intoxicated. 
John  Depuy  and  Adam  Gray  testify  that  except  that  one  time  he 
was  always  sober.  David  Winner  proves  he  was  sober  all  the 
time  the  witness  lived  at  Willard's,  and  Mary  Ann  Newark  says 


470  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

he  was  entirely  sober  when  he  sallied  forth  on  his  fatal  enterprise. 
The  only  value  of  the  fact  of  his  drunkenness,  if  it  existed,  would 
be  to  account  for  his  disturbed  nights  at  Depuy's,  at  Gray's,  and  at 
Willard's.  It  is  clearly  proved  that  his  mind  was  not  beclouded, 
nor  his  frame  excited,  by  any  such  cause  on  any  of  those  occa- 
sions ;  and  Dr.  Brigham  truly  tells  you  that  while  the  maniac 
goes  quietly  to  his  bed,  and  is  driven  from  it  by  the  dreams  of  a 
disturbed  imagination,  the  drunkard  completes  his  revels  and  his 
orgies  before  he  sinks  to  rest,  and  then  lies  stupid  and  besotted 
until  nature  restores  his  wasted  energies  with  return  of  day. 

Several  of  the  prisoner's  witnesses  have  fallen  under  the  dis- 
pleasure of  the  counsel  for  the  people.  John  Depuy  was  asked 
on  the  trial  of  the  preliminary  issue,  whether  he  had  not  said, 
when  the  prisoner  was  arrested,  that  he  was  no  more  crazy  than 
himself.  He  answered,  that  he  had  not  said  "  in  those  words," 
and  asked  leave  to  explain  by  stating  what  he  had  said.  The  court 
denied  him  the  right  and  obliged  him  to  answer  yes  or  no,  and  of 
course  he  answered  no.  On  this  trial  he  makes  the  explanation, 
that  after  the  murder  of  Van  Nest,  being  informed  that  the  pri- 
soner had  threatened  his  life,  he  said,  "  Bill  would  do  well  enough 
if  they  wouldn't  give  him  liquor;  he  was  bad  enough  at  any 
time,  and  liquor  made  him  worse."  By  a  forced  construction, 
this  declaration,  which  substantially  agrees  with  what  he  is  proved 
by  other  witnesses  to  have  said,  is  brought  in  conflict  with  his  nar- 
row denial,  made  on  the  former  trial.  It  has  been  intimated  on 
this  trial,  that  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  would  contend  that 
John  Depuy  was  an  accomplice  of  the  prisoner  and  the  instigator 
of  his  crimes.  This  cruel  and  unfeeling  charge  has  no  ground, 
even  in  imagination,  except  that  twelve  years  ago  Depuy  labored 
for  six  weeks  on  the  farm  of  the  late  Mr.  Yan  Nest,  then  belong- 
ing to  his  father-in-law,  Peter  "Wyckoff,  that  a  misunderstanding 
arose  between  them,  which  they  adjusted  by  arbitration  and  that 
they  were  friends  always  afterward.  The  elder  Mr.  Wyckoff 
died  six  years  go.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  late  Mr.  Yan  Nest 
was  even  married  at  that  time.  JOHN  DEPUY  is  a  colored  man,  of 
vigorous  frame  and  strong  mind,  with  good  education.  His  testi- 
mony, conclusive  in  this  cause,  was  intelligently  given.  He  claims 
your  respect  as  a  representative  of  his  people,  rising  to  that  equal- 
ity to  which  it  is  the  tendency  of  our  institutions  to  bring  them. 

I  have  heard  the  greatest  of  American  orators.     I  have  heard 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN. 

Daniel  O'Connell  and  Sir  Robert  Peel,  but  I  heard  John  Depuy 
make  a  speech  excelling  them  all  in  eloquence :  "  They  have 
made  William  Freeman  what  he  is,  a  brute  beast ;  they  don't 
make  any  thing  else  of  any  of  our  people  but  brute  beasts  ;  but 
when  we  violate  their  laws,  then  they  want  to  punish  us  as  if 
we  were  men."  I  hope  the  Attorney  General  may  press  his 
charge :  I  like  to  see  persecution  carried  to  such  a  length ;  for  the 
strongest  bow,  when  bent  too  far,  will  break. 

DEBOKAH  DEPUY  is  also  assailed  as  unworthy  of  credit.  She 
calls  herself  the  wife  of  Hiram  Depuy,  with  whom  she  has  lived 
ostensibly  in  that  relation  for  seven  years,  in,  I  believe,  un- 
questioned fidelity  to  him  and  her  children.  But  it  appears  that 
she  has  not  been  married  with  the  proper  legal  solemnities.  If 
she  were  a  white  woman,  I  should  regard  her  testimony  with 
caution,  but  the  securities  of  marriage  are  denied  to  the  African 
race  over  more  than  half  of  this  country.  It  is  within  our  own 
memory  that  the  master's  cupidity  could  divorce  husband  and 
wife  within  this  state,  and  sell  their  children  into  perpetual  bond- 
age. Since  the  Act  of  Emancipation  here,  what  has  been  done  by 
the  white  man  to  lift  up  the  race  from  the  debasement  into  which 
he  had  plunged  it  ?  Let  us  impart  to  negroes  the  knowledge  and 
spirit  of  Christianity,  and  share  with  them  the  privileges,  dignity 
and  hopes  of  citizens  and  Christians,  before  we  expect  of  them 
purity  and  relf -respect. 

But,  gentlemen,  even  in  a  slave  state,  the  testimony  of  this  wit- 
ness would  receive  credit  in  such  a  cause,  for  negroes  may  be 
witnesses  there,  for  and  against  persons  of  their  own  caste.  It  is 
only  when  the  life,  liberty  or  property  of  the  white  man  is  invaded, 
that  the  negro  is  disqualified.  Let  us  not  be  too  severe.  There 
was  once  upon  the  earth  a  Divine  Teacher  who  shall  come  again 
to  judge  the  world  in  righteousness.  They  brought  to  him  a  wo- 
man taken  in  adultery,  and  said  to  him  tliat  the  law  of  Moses  di- 
rected that  such  should  be  stoned  to  death,  and  he  answered :  "  Let 
him  that  is  without  sin  cast  the  first  stone." 

The  testimony  of  SALLY  FREEMAN,  the  mother  of  the  prisoner, 
is  questioned.  She  utters  the  voice  of  NATURE.  She  is  the  guardian 
whom  God  assigned  to  study,  to  watch,  to  learn,  to  know  what  the 
prisoner  was,  and  is,  and  to  cherish  the  memory  of  it  for  ever. 
She  could  not  forget  it  if  she  would.  There  is  not  a  blemish  on 
the  person  of  any  one  of  us,  born  with  us  or  coming  from  disease 


472  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

or  accident,  nor  have  we  committed  a  right  or  wrong  action,  that 
has  not  been  treasured  up  in  the  memory  of  a  mother.  Juror ! 
roll  lip  the  sleeve  from  your  manly  arm  and  you  will  find  a  scar 
there  of  which  you  know  nothing.  Your  mother  will  give  you 
the  detail  of  every  day's  progress  of  the  preventive  disease. — SALLY 
FREEMAN  has  the  mingled  blood  of  the  African  and  Indian  races. 
She  is  nevertheless  a  woman,  and  a  mother,  and  nature  bears  wit- 
ness in  every  climate  and  in  every  country,  to  the  singleness  and 
uniformity  of  those  characters.  I  have  known  and  proved  them 
in  the  hovel  of  the  slave,  and  in  the  wigwam  of  the  Chippewa. 
But  Sally  Freeman  has  been  intemperate.  The  white  man  en- 
slaved her  ancestors  of  the  one  race,  exiled  and  destroyed  those  of 
the  other,  and  debased  them  all  by  corrupting  their  natural  and 
healthful  appetites.  She  comes  honestly  by  her  only  vice.  Yet 
when  she  comes  here  to  testify  for  a  life  that  is  dearer  to  her  than 
her  own,  to  say  she  knows  her  own  son,  the  white  man  says  she  is 
a  drunkard !  May  Heaven  forgive  the  white  man  for  adding  this 
last,  this  cruel  injury  to  the  wrongs  of  such  a  mother !  Fortunately, 
gentlemen,  her  character  and  conduct  are  before  you.  ]STo  woman 
ever  appeared  with  more  sobriety,  decency,  modesty,  and  propri- 
ety, than  she  has  exhibited  here.  No  witness  has  dared  to  say  or 
think  that  SALLY  FREEMAN  is  not  a  woman  of  truth.  Dr.  CLARY; 
a  witness  for  the  prosecution,  who  knows  her  well,  says,  that  with 
all  her  infirmities  of  temper  and  of  habit,  Sally  "  was  always  a 
truthful  woman."  The  Roman  Cornelia  could  not  have  claimed 
more.  Let  then  the  stricken  mother  testify  for  her  son. 

"  I  ask  not,  I  care  not,  if  guilt's  in  that  heart, 
I  know  that  I  love  thee,  whatever  thou  art." 

The  learned  gentlemen  who  conduct  this  prosecution  have  at- 
tempted to  show  that  the  prisoner  attended  the  trial  of  Henry 
Wyatt,  whom  1  defended  against  an  indictment  for  murder,  in  this 
Court,  in  February  last ;  that  he  listened  to  me  on  that  occasion, 
in  regard  to  the  impunity  of  crime,  and  that  he  went  out  a  ripe 
and  complete  scholar.  So  far  as  these  reflections  affect  me  alone, 
they  are  unworthy  of  an  answer.  I  pleaded  for  Wyatt  then,  as  it 
was  my  right  and  my  duty  to  do.  Let  the  Counsel  for  the  people 
prove  the  words  I  spake,  before  they  charge  me  with  Freeman's 
crimes.  I  am  not  unwilling  those  words  should  be  recalled.  I  am 
not  unwilling  that  any  words  I  ever  spoke  in  any  responsible  re- 
lation should  be  remembered.  Since  they  will  not  recall  those 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  473 

words,  I  will  do  so  for  them.  They  were  words  like  those  I  speak 
now,  demanding  cautious  and  impartial  justice  ;  words  appealing 
to  the  reason,  to  the  consciences,  to  the  humanity  of  my  fellow 
men ;  words  calculated  to  make  mankind  know  and  love  each 
other  better,  and  adopt  the  benign  principles  of  Christianity,  in- 
stead of  the  long  cherished  maxim  of  retaliation  and  revenge. 
The  creed  of  Mahomet  was  promulgated  at  a  time  when  paper  was 
of  inestimable  value,  anfl.  the  Koran  teaches  that  every  scrap  of 
paper  which  the  believer  has  saved  during  his  life,  will  gather 
itself  under  his  feet,  to  protect  them  from  the  burning  iron  which  he 
must  pass  over,  while  entering  into  Paradise.  Regardless  as  I  have 
been  of  the  unkind  construction  of  my  words  and  actions  by  my 
cotemporaries,  I  can  say  in  all  humility  of  spirit,  that  they  are  freely 
left  to  the  ultimate,  impartial  consideration  of  mankind.  But, 
gentlemen,  how  gross  is  the  credulity  implied  by  this  charge ! 
This  stupid  idiot,  who  cannot  take  into  his  ears,  deaf  as  death,  the 
words  which  I  am  speaking  to  you,  though  I  stand  within  three 
feet  of  him,  and  who  even  now  is  exchanging  smiles  with  his  and 
my  accusers,  .regardless  of  the  deep  anxiety  depicted  in  your 
countenances,  was  standing  at  yonder  post,  sixty  feet  distant  from 
me,  when  he  was  here,  if  he  was  here  at  all,  on  the  trial  of  Henry 
Wyatt.  The  voice  of  the  District  Attorney  reverberates  through 
this  dome,  while  mine  is  lost  almost  within  the  circle  of  the  bar. 
It  does  not  appear  that  it  was  not  that  voice  that  beguiled  the  ma- 
niac, instead  of  mine ;  and  certain  it  is  that,  since  the  prisoner  does 
not  comprehend  the  object  of  his  attendance  here  now,  lie  could 
not  have  understood  anything  that  occurred  on  the  trial  of  Wyatt. 
Gentlemen,  my  responsibilities  in  this  cause  are  discharged.  In 
the  earnestness  and  seriousness  with  which  I  have  pleaded,  you 
will  find  the  reason  for  the  firmness  with  which  I  have  resisted 
the  popular  passions  around  me.  I  am  in  some  degree  responsible, 
like  every  other  citizen,  for  the  conduct  of  the  community  in  which 
I  live.  They  may  not  inflict  on  a  maniac  the  punishment  of  a 
malefactor  without  involving  me  in  blame,  if  I  do  not  remonstrate. 
I  cannot  afford  to  be  in  error,  abroad,  and  in  future  times.  If  I 
were  capable  of  a  sentiment  so  cruel  and  so  base,  I  ought  to  hope 
for  the  conviction  of  the  accused ;  for  then  the  vindictive  passions, 
now  so  highly  excited,  would  subside,  the  consciences  of  the  wise 
and  the  humane  would  be  awakened,  and  in  a  few  months  the 


474  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

invectives  which  have  so  long  pursued  nie  would  be  hurled  against 
the  jury  and  the  court. 

You  have  now  the  fate  of  this  lunatic  in  your  hands.  To  him 
as  to  me,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  it  is  comparatively  indifferent 
what  be  the  issue.  The  wisest  of  modern  men  has  left  us  a  saying, 
that  "  the  hour  of  death  is  more  fortunate  than  the  hour  of  birth," 
a  saying  which  he  signalized  by  bestowing  a  gratuity  twice  as 
great  upon  the  place  where  he  died  as  upon  the  hamlet  where  he 
was  born.  For  aught  that  we  can  judge,  the  prisoner  is  uncon- 
scious of  danger  and  would  be  insensible  to  suffering,  let  it  come 
when  and  in  whatever  forms  it  might.  A  verdict  can  only  hasten, 
by  a  few  months  -or  years,  the  time  when  his  bruised,  diseased, 
wandering  and  benighted  spirit  shall  return  to  Him  who  sent  it 
forth  on  its  sad  and  dreary  pilgrimage. 

The  circumstances  under  which  this  trial  closes  are  peculiar.  I 
have  seen  capital  cases  where  the  parents,  brothers,  sisters,  friends 
of  the  accused  surrounded  him,  eagerly  hanging  upon  the  lips  of 
his  advocate,  and  watching,  in  the  countenances  of  the  court  and 
jury,  every  smile  and  frown  which  might  seem  to  indicate  his  fate. 
But  there  is  no  such  scene  here.  The  prisoner,  though  in  the 
greenness  of  youth,  is  withered,  decayed,  senseless,  almost  lifeless. 
He  has  no  father  here.  The  descendant  of  slaves,  that  father  died 
a  victim  to  the  vices  of  a  superior  race.  There  is  no  mother  here, 
for  her  child  is  stained  and  polluted  with  the  blood  of  mothers  and 
of  a  sleeping  infant ;  and  he  "  looks  and  laughs  so  that  she  cannot 
bear  to  look  upon  him."  There  is  no  brother,  nor  sister,  nor  friend 
here.  Popular  rage  against  the  accused  has  driven  them  hence, 
and  scattered  his  kindred  and  people.  On  the  other  side,  I  notice 
the  aged  and  venerable  parents  of  Yan  Nest  and  his  surviving 
children,  and  all  around  are  mourning  and  sympathizing  friends. 
I  know  not  at  whose  instance  they  have  come.  I  dare  not  say 
they  ought  not  to  be  here.  But  I  must  say  to  you  that  we  live  in 
a  Christian  and  not  in  a  savage  state,  and  that  the  affliction  which 
has  fallen  upon  these  mourners  and  us,  was  sent  to  teach  them 
and  us  mercy  and  not  retaliation ;  that,  although  we  may  send  this 
maniac  to  the  scaffold,  it  will  not  recall  to  life  the  manly  form  of 
Van  Nest,  nor  re-animate  the  exhausted  frame  of  that  aged  matron, 
nor  restore  to  life  and  grace,  and  beauty,  the  murdered  mother, 
nor  call  back  the  infant  boy  from  the  arms  of  his  Savior.  Such 
a  verdict  can  do  no  good  to  the  living,  and  carry  no  joy  to  the 


DEFENCE  OF  WILLIAM  FREEMAN.  475 

dead.  If  your  judgment  shall  be  swayed  at  all  by  sympathies  so 
wrong,  although  so  natural,  you  will  find  the  saddest  hour  of  your 
life  to  be  that  in  which  you  will  look  down  upon  the  grave  of 
your  victim,  and  "  mourn  with  compunctious  sorrow "  that  you 
should  have  done  so  great  injustice  to  the  "  poor  handful  of  earth 
that  will  lie  mouldering  before  you." 

I  have  been  long  and  tedious.  I  remember  that  it  is  the  harvest 
moon,  and  that  every  hour  is  precious  while  you  are  detained  from 
your  yellow  fields.  But  if  you  shall  have  bestowed  patient  atten- 
tion throughout  this  deeply  interesting  investigation,  and  shall  in 
the  end  have  discharged  your  duties  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  the 
love  of  truth  justly  and  independently,  you  will  have  laid  up  a 
store  of  blessed  recollections  for  all  your  future  days,  imperishable 
and  inexhaustible. 

NOTE. — As  has  been  already  stated,  a  verdict  of  guilty  was  rendered,  and  the  prisoner 
was  sentenced  to  be  hanged.  But  Mr.  Seward's  efforts  to  prevent  the  execution  of  a 
demented  maniac  did  not  end  here.  He  appealed  to  the  governor  for  a  pardon,  with 
what  success  the  following  correspondence  will  show : 

AUBURN,  August  17th,  1846. 

DEAR  SIR. — "William  Freeman,  a  negro,  lies  in  the  jail  of  this  county  under  sentence 
of  death  for  the 'crime  of  murder.  I  acted  as  his  counsel  on  the  solicitation  of  humane 
persons  who  believed  him  insane.  I  believe  him  absolutely  and  hopelessly  insane,  sink- 
ing from  monomania  into  dementia.  I  believe  he  was  a  lunatic,  and  committed  his 
crimes  under  the  influence  of  an  insane  delusion.  Thus  believing,  it  seems  to  be  a  duty 
to  appeal  to  you  for  pardon  to  the  convict.  The  grounds  of  my  opinion  are  the  came 
which  were  submitted  to  the  jury  and  overlooked  by  them.  I  beg  leave,  therefore,  to 
transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  my  argument  on  the  trial.  You  will,  of  course,  know  what 
allowance  should  be  made  for  my  prejudices  and  my  zeal  as  counsel,  and  will  know  how 
much  confidence  ought  to  be  reposed  in  the  verdict  of  the  jury.  My  own  duty  is  finished 
when  I  express  to  you  my  sincere  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  plea  which  I  unsuccess- 
fully maintained.  Fully  believing  that  the  subject  will  engage  your  most  dispassionate 
consideration,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  Your  Excellency's  most  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.   SEWARD. 
His  Excellency  SILAS  WEIGHT,  Governor,  &c. 

EXECUTIVE  CHAMBER.          ) 
Albany,  7th  September,  1846.  ) 

DEAR  SIR, — On  my  return  to  the  city  on  the  22d  ult.,  I  found  your  letter  of  the  17th, 
relating  to  the  case  of  William  Freeman,  and  the  copy  of  your  printed  argument  which 
accompanied  the  letter.  A  large  share  of  my  time,  since  my  return,  has  been  devoted  to 
the  examination  of  the  reports  from  the  judge,  and  the  other  papers  connected  with 
the  case,  and  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  testimony  to 
warrant  me  in  overruling  the  verdicts  of  the  two  juries,  finding  the  fact  of  sanity.  JThe 
case  is  a  painful  one  in  every  aspect  of  it,  and  yet  it  would  have  been  pleasant  to  my 
feelings  to  have  found  it  in  my  power,  consistently  with  my  sense  of  duty,  to  have  saved 
this  man  from  the  awful  fate  impending  over  him.  I  read  your  argument  with  attention 
and  deep  interest,  but  I  did  not  find  in  it  matter  to  obviate  the  force  of  the  testimony 
upon  the  other  side  and  the  verdicts  of  the  two  juries.  I  am  very  respectfully,  <tc., 

SILAS  WRIGHT. 
His  Excellency  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD,  dec.  &c. 

Mr.  Seward's  next  appeal  was  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  new  trial,  which  was  granted. 
The  death  of  Freeman,  however,  relieved  him  of  further  labor  in  the  case. — ED. 


476  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 


FUGITIVE    SLAVES.* 

MAY   IT   PLEASE  THE    COURT, 

The  defendant  moved  in  the  Circuit  Court  for  a  ntw  trial  on 
the  ground  of  ERRONEOUS  INSTRUCTIONS  given  by  the  court  to  the 


The  defendant  moved  also  an  arrest  of  judgment  on  the  ground 
of  the  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 

On  hearing  these  motions,  the  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  re- 
quired instructions  from  this  august  tribunal,  upon  eight  questions 
which  arose  on  the  former  motion,  to  wit  : 

First.  "Whether  under  the  fourth  section  of  the  act  of  February  12,  1793,  the  notice 
must  be  in  writing,  given  by  the  claimant  or  his  agent  ;  must  contain  a  statement  that 
the  person  harbored  or  concealed  is  a  fugitive  from  labor,  •within  the  meaning  of  the  third 
section  of  the  statute,  and  must  be  served  on  the  person  who  harbors  or  conceals  the 
alleged  fugitive. 

Second.  Whether  such  notice,  if  it  be  not  in  writing,  and  it  be  not  served  in  the  man-' 
ner  before  mentioned,  must  be  given  verbally,  by  the  claimant  or  his  agent,  to  the  per- 
son who  harbors  or  conceals  the  alleged  fugitive,  or  whether  a  general  notice  in  a  news- 
paper to  the  public  is  necessary. 

Third.  Whether  clear  proof,  by  the  confessions  of  the  defendant  or  otherwise,  that  he 
knew  the  colored  person  harbored  or  concealed  was  a  slave,  and  was  a  fugitive  from 
labor,  is  not  sufficient  to  charge  the  defendant  with  notice  ;  although  he  may  have  obtained 
such  knowledge  from  the  slave,  or  in  any  other  manner. 

Fourth.  Whether  the  facts  that  the  defendant  received,  from  another  person,  the  fugi- 
tive from  labor  at  three  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  twelve  miles  from 
the  place  in  Kentucky  where  he  was  held  to  labor,  and  transported  him  in  a  closely 
covered  wagon,  twelve  or  fourteen  miles,  so  that  he  escaped  from  pursuit  and  his  services 
were  thereby  lost  to  his  master,  do  not  constitute  an  act  of  "  harboring,"  or  of  •'  concealing  " 
the  fugitive  withiu  the  meaning  of  the  statute. 

*  This  action  was  brought  iu  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  district  of 
Ohio,  by  W  barton  Jones,  of  Kentucky,  against  Jolid  Van  Zandt,  of  Ohio,  to  recover  a 
penalty  of  five  hundred  dollars,  for  harboring,  and  coHoealing,  Andrew,  the  plaintiff's 
slave,  in  violation  of  the  act  of  Congress,  1793.  The  jury,  under  the  charge  of  the  court,- 
rendered  a  verdict  for  the  plaintiff.  The  defendant  moved  for  a  new  trial,  and  an  arrest 
of  judgment.  The  cause  came  into  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  December. 
1847,  on  a.  certificate  that  the  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  were  divided  in  their  opinions 
upon  the  questions  stated  in  the  argument.  Counsel  for  the  plaintiff,  JAMES  T.  MOREHEAD, 
of  Kentucky.  Counsel  for  the  defendant,  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD,  of  New  York,  and  S.  P. 
CHASE,  of  Ohio. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES  477 

Fifth.  "Whether  such  transportation,  -with  the  circumstances  thus  mentioned,  is  not 
"  harboring"  or  "concealing"  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  although  the  fugitive 
should  be  recaptured  by  his  master. 

Sixth.  Whether  such  transportation,  in  an  open  wagon,  whereby  the  services  of  the 
fugitive  are  entirely  lost  by  his  master,  is  not  harboring  the  slave  within  the  statute. 

Seventh.  Whether  a  claim  of  the  fugitive  upon  the  person  who  harbors  or  conceals 
him,  must  precede  or  accompany  the  notice. 

Eighth.  W  hether  any  overt  act  of  a  character  so  marked  as  to  show  an  intention  to 
elude  the  vigilance  of  the  master,  or  his  agent,  and  calculated  to  effect  that  object,  is 
harboring  the  fugitive  within  the  statute. 

The  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  require  also  instructions  upon 
six  questions  which  arose  upon  the  motion  in  arrest  of  judg- 
ment. 

First.  Whether  the  first  and  second  counts  in  the  declaration  contain  sufficient  aver- 
ments that  Andrew,  the  colored  man,  escaped  from  the  State  of  Kentucky  into  the  State 
of  Ohio. 

Second.  Whether  said  counts  contain  a  sufficient  averment  of  notice,  that  Andrew  was 
a  fugitive  from  labor. 

Third.  Whether  the  averments  in  those  counts,  that  the  defendant  harbored  Andrew, 
are  sufficient. 

Fourth.  Whether  those  counts  are  otherwise  sufficient. 

Fifth.  Whether  the  act  of  February  12th,  1793,  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

Sixth.  Whether  that  act  is  repugnant  to  the  ordinance  of  Congress  of  July,  1787,  en- 
titled, "  An  Ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  north- 
west of  the  Ohio." 

I  humbly  beg  leave  to  submit  my  views  upon  these  questions, 
under  four  propositions : 

FIEST.  THE  DECLARATION  is  INSUFFICIENT. 

SECOND.  THE  EVIDENCE  WAS  IMPROPER  AND  INSUFFICIENT. 

THIRD.  THE  ACT  OF  1793,  so  FAR  AS  THE  PRESENT  SUBJECT  is 

INVOLVED,  IS   VOID,  BECAUSE   IT   VIOLATES   THE   ORDINANCE   OF   1787. 

FOURTH.  THE  ACT  OF  1793  CONFLICTS  WITH  THE  CONSTITUTION 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AND  is  THEREFORE  voro. 

Thus  my  argument,  which  begins  in  the  mazes  of  special  plead- 
ing, will  conduct  us  through  a  portion  of  the  interesting  field  of 
the  law  of  evidence,  and  bring  us,  at  last,  into  the'  wide  domain 
of  constitutional  law.  If  I  should  fail  by  the  way,  I  hope  it  may 
be  remembered,  for  my  excuse,  that  an  imperative  duty  com- 
manded me  to  undertake  so  long  and  difficult  a  journey. 

FIRST. — THE  DECLARATION  is  INSUFFICIENT. 

Because,  first,  neither  count  sufficiently  charges  the  defendant 
with  notice  that  Andrew  was  a  fugitive  from  labor. 

Secondly.  It  is  not  sufficiently  averred  that  Andrew  was  held  to 
labor  or  service  to  the  plaintiff  in  Kentucky,  by  the  laws  thereof, 
and  escaped  and  fled  from  that  state  into  Ohio. 

YOL.  1—31. 


478  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

<• 

Thirdly.  It  is  not  sufficiently  averred,  that  the  defendant  har- 
bored or  concealed  the  fugitive. 

FIRST.  It  is  not  charged,  in  either  count,  that  the  defendant  had 
notice  before  the  alleged  harboring  or  concealment,  that  Andrew 
was  a  fugitive  from  labor. 

The  substance  of  the  statute  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows  : 

SECTION  3.  "  When  a  person  held  to  labor  in  any  state  or  territory,  under  the  laws 
"  thereof,  shall  escape  into  any  other  state  or  territory,  the  person  to  whom  such  labor  is 
"  due,  or  his  agent,  or  attorney,  may  seize  or  arrest  the  fugitive." 

SEC.  4.  "  If  any  person  shall,  knowingly  and  willingly,  obstruct,  or  hinder,  such 
14  claimant,  or  his  agent,  or  attorney,  in  thus  seizing  and  arresting  the  fugitive,  or  shall 
"  HARBOR  OB  CONCEAL  SUCH  PERSON,  AFTER  NOTICE  that  he  or  she  is  a  fugitive  from  labor, 
"  as  aforesaid,  he  shall,  for  either  of  the  said  offences,  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  five 
"  hundred  dollars." 

The  offence  pretended  in  the  declaration  is,  what  is  created  by 
the  second  clause  of  the  4th  section,  and  consists  in  "  harboring," 
or  "  concealing"  a  fugitive  from  labor,  after  notice  received  that 
the  person  thus  protected  has  escaped  from  labor,  to  which  he 
was  held  by  a  law  of  the  state,  from  which  he  fled. 

His  Honor,  the  presiding  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court,  [Mc- 
LEAN,]  held,  that  positive,  direct,  and  formal  notice  was  not  ne- 
cessary ;  and  that  knowledge  possessed  by  the  defendant,  however 
obtained,  was  equivalent  to  such  notice,  or  a  substitute  for  it.  Such 
a  construction  of  the  statute  is  obviously  necessary  to  support  this 
declaration.  But  this  construction  relieves  this  penal  statute 
against  liberty  and  humanity  of  a  condition  favorable  to  both, 
expressly  and  emphatically  declared.  A  person  shall  not  forfeit 
and  pay  five  hundred  dollars  for  merely  harboring  or  concealing 
a  fugitive.  Such  protection  and  hospitality  shall  not  subject  the 
offender  to  punishment,  even  though  knowingly  and  willingly 
rendered.  He  may  harbor  the  slave,  and  conceal  him  from  his 
pursuers,  as  the  law  of  nature  commands,  until  after  notice  that 
the  master  forbids.  The  words  AFTER  NOTICE  are  strongly  con- 
trasted, in  this  clause  of  the  section,  with  the  previous  words 
knowingly  and  willingly,  in  another  part  of  the  same  section. 
The  word  after  gives  precision.  It  is  not  with  knowledge,  or 
even  with  notice,  but  after  notice.  And  this  form  of  expression 
raises  the  notice  prescribed,  up  to  the  dignity  of  a  condition  pre- 
cedent of  the  crime. 

If  NOTICE  be  a  condition  precedent,  then  the  notice  must  be  ea>- 
plicit,  certain,  direct  and  comprehensvve.  Such  notice  is  capable 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  479 

of  being  averred.  ~No  such  notice  is  averred ;  or,  at  least,  none 
such  is  described. 

The  learned  Judge  held  that,  as  a  general  principle,  when  the 
law  speaks  of  notice,  it  does  not  contemplate  a  notice  in  writing, 
unless  it  be  required  by  statute,  by  commercial  usage,  or  by 
the  practice  of  courts.  He  held  also,  as  a  general  principle,  that 
knowledge  is  equivalent  to  notice.  But  I  humbly  submit  that 
these  general  principles,  however  true,  are  never  applied  in  con- 
struing penal  statutes.  Legal  conditions  may  be  dispensed  with 
for  equivalents,  to  promote  the  ends  of  justice  in  civil  controver- 
sies ;  but  they  cannot  be  waived  when  they  are  barriers,  erected 
for  the  protection  of  the  accused. 

Wisdom  and  humanity  are  manifested  in  this  condition  prece- 
dent of  notice,  as  contrasted  with  mere  knowledge.  For  he  who 
obstructs,  or  hinders  a  master  in  the  act  of  recapture,  does,  what 
under  the  law  of  slavery,  is  a  palpable  private  wrong,  and  com- 
mits a  breach  of  the  peace.  But  harboring  and  concealing  a  wea- 
ry and  fainting  slave,  though  known  as  a  slave,  is  not  injurious, 
and  does  not  disturb  society.  Under  no  law  can  this  act  be  deem- 
ed immoral ;  and  in  most  cases  it  would  be  charitable.  It  can 
only  become  an  oifence  when  persisted  in  after  notice.  The  Con- 
stitution provides  only  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  when  claim- 
ed, and  the  law,  following  the  Constitution,  forbids  the  freeman  to 
harbor  the  slave,  only  after  notice  of  a  design,  or  purpose  to  re- 
claim. If  there  be  no  such  effort  or  design,  it  is  as  lawful,  and  as 
humane  to  harbor  the  slave,  as  to  entertain  a  fellow  freeman.  But 
the  construction  of  the  learned  Judge  makes  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  interdict  protection,  hospitality,  and  charity  to  the 
slave,  whom  no  master  pursueth,  and  commands  the  citizen  to 
shut  out  the  wandering  fugitive  who  may  be  perishing  at  his  gate. 
This  would  be  injurious  to  the  master,  as  well  as  inhuman  toward 
the  slave.  If  he  be  left  to  die,  his  services  will  be  lost ;  but  if  he 
be  harbored  and  revived,  he  will  be  in  a  condition  to  be  reclaim- 
ed. 

Nor  is  the  principle  that  mere  knowledge,  however  acquired, 
is  equivalent  to  direct  notice  at  all  as  general,  even  in  commercial 
law,  as  is  supposed.  In  an  action  against  the  indorser,  or  drawer 
of  a  bill  of  exchange,  if  the  plaintiff  do  not  aver  in  the  declaration 
a  demand  of  payment  at  the  proper  time,  on  the  drawee  or  ac- 
ceptor, or  omit  to  allege  due  notice  to  the  defendant,  of  refusal  of 


480  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

payment  by  the  party  first  liable,  the  omission  is  fatal.  And 
what  is  required  in  those  cases  is  direct  notice*  The  only  reason 
for  this  is,  that  the  defendant  is  not  at  all  liable  until  AFTER  NOTICE. 
The  well-known  case  of  Rushton  vs.  Aspinwall,f  was  an  action 
against  an  indorser,  and  the  declaration  contained  an  averment 
of  request  of  the  acceptor,  but  no  allegation  of  notice  to  the 
indorser.  Lord  Mansfield  said,  "the  defendant  is  sued  on  a 
promise  inferred  by  law,  and  the  declaration  does  not  contain 
the  premises  from  which  the  inference  can  be  drawn."  This 
reasoning  applies  with  precision  to  the  present  case. 

Where  it  is  necessary  to  charge  a  party,  notice  must  be  fully 
averred.  Thus  in  Comyn's  Digest  Tit.  Pleader  69,  it  is  laid  down 
as  a  rule,  that  not  only  must  NOTICE  be  averred,  but  it  must  be 
averred  with  particular  certainty  of  time,  place,  and  substance. 

This  action  is  founded  upon  a  statute.  There  is  an  inflexible 
rule,  that  in  such  a  case  the  plaintiff  must  aver  every  fact  essential 
to  the  offence,  because  unless  the  declaration  be  thus  explicit,  the 
court  cannot  determine,  whether  the  prosecutor  has  a  cause  of 
action.*  The  defendant  may  innocently  harbor  a  slave  until  after 
notice.  Then  notice  is  a  condition.  It  is  more  ;  it  is  a  condition 
precedent.  Then  the  party  harboring  is  entitled  to  notice.  That 
notice  must  be  given  by  him  who  seeks  to  subject  the  defendant 
to  the  penalty.  Giving  the  notice,  then,  is  a  condition  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  plaintiff,  and  by  no  one  else.  This  action  is  founded 
on  a  contract  created  by  law. 

The  statute  builds  the  obligation  upon  two  facts :  First,  that  the 
defendant  has  received  notice,  that  the  person  harbored  is  a  fugi- 
tive from  labor,  held  &c.  ;  and  secondly,  that  the  defendant,  after 
that  notice,  harbors  the  fugitive.  But,  "  when  the  performance  of 
an  agreement  depends  on  an  act,  to  be  done  by  the  plaintiff,  then 
his  doing  the  act,  is  a  condition  precedent,  and  the  court  will  not 
inquire,  whether  its  performance  would  be  beneficial  to  the  de- 
fendant, or  its  neglect  would  be  injurious.  The  act  must  be 

done."! 

Again,  the  case  is  exactly  similar  to  one  where  a  previous  re- 
quest is  made  a  condition  of  liability.  But  the  authorities  teach 
us,  that  if  there  be  a  condition,  that  a  person  shall  do  upon  request, 

*  Gould's  Pleadings,  Chapter  IV.  §  18,  14,  15, 16. 

t  Douglass,  683. 

J  Cornyn's  Digest,  Pleader  C.  76. 

|  Ibid. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  4:81 

then  the  averment  of  request  must  be  certain,  and  express,  and 
thus  show  full  performance  of  the  condition  precedent.*  Two 
forms  of  requests  are  recognized  in  pleading ;  general  and  special 
requests.  A  declaration  on  a  contract  always  contains  an  aver- 
ment, that  the  plaintiff  requested  the  defendant  to  perform,  even 
though  the  request  was  not  a  condition  precedent.  In  such  cases, 
the  request  averred  is  general,  without  particularity  of  time,  place, 
or  circumstances.  The  allegation  is  merely  formal.  It  cannot  be 
traversed  by  the  defendant,  nor  need  it  be  proved  by  the  plaintiff. 
But  a  special  request  is  one  which  is  a  condition  of  the  defendant's 
liability.  And  in  such  cases,  the  special  request  must  be  averred 
with  particularity.  Issue  may  be  taken  on  it,  and  it  must  be 
proved,  as  charged,  f  The  notice  prescribed  in  the  act  of  1793,  is 
equivalent  to  a  request.  The  law  contemplates  that  the  defendant 
may  be  found  harboring  a  slave,  as  a  mere  act  of  hospitality,  or 
of  humanity,  whereby  his  services  may  be  lost  to  his  master,  au- 
thorizes the  master  to  deprive  the  slave  of  his  refuge  by  giving 
notice  to  the  defendant  of  the  slave's  relation,  and  imposes  a  pen- 
alty on  the  defendant,  if  he  do  not  then  withdraw  his  protection. 

We  need  not  inquire  whether  written  notice  would  be  necessary, 
whether  verbal  notice  would  be  sufficient,  how  vague  the  notice 
might  be,  whether  it  must  be  given  directly,  served  personally, 
published  or  printed.  The  objection  is,  not  that  an  insufficient  or 
unartificial  notice  is  averred,  but  that  no  notice  whatever  is  al- 
leged. 

If  this  argument  be  sound,  this  court  will  direct  the  circuit 
court  to  arrest  the  judgment,  because  the  declaration  is  insufficient. 
It  is  true,  that  in  the  second  count  it  is  averred  that  the  defendant 
"  Had  notice  that  the  said  Andrew  was  a  slave  of  the  plaintiff,  and 
a  fugitive  from  labor."  But  this  alleged  notice  is  merely  general 
and  vague,  and  it  is  not  shown  how,  when,  where,  or  by  whom  it 
was  given  ;  it  is  not  shown  that  the  defendant  had  notice  that  An- 
drew was  held  to  labor,  to  the  plaintiff  in  Kentucky,  by  the  laws 
thereof,  or  that  he  fled  from  Kentucky.  An  averment  of  notice 
so  vague  as  that  contained  in  the  second  count  is  as  bad  as  no 
averment. 

The  constitutional  provision,  on  the  subject,  is,  that  "  No  person 
held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof,  es- 

*  Corny n's  Digest,  Condition  10,  11. 

t  Dana's  Abridgment,  Pleading  Chapt.  177.  Art.  I.  Section  2,  3.  and  VoL  VI.  p.  26. 


482  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

caping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regula- 
tion therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor ;  but  shall 
be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due."*  The  statutory  provision  is,  that  when  a  per- 
son held  to  labor  in  any  of  the  United  States,  under  the  laws  there- 
of, shall  escape  into  any  other  of  the  said  states,  the  person  to 
whom  such  labor  is  due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  may  seize  or  arrest 
any  such  fugitive.  And  further,  that  when  any  person  shall  har- 
bor or  conceal  such  person,  after  notice  that  he  or  she  was  a  fugi- 
tive from  labor,  as  afoi'esaid,  he  shall  forfeit  and  pay,  tfcc.f  The 
notice  required  by  the  statute,  so  far  from  being  merely  formal, 
or  indefinite,  is  identical,  with  an  actual  claim  of  the  fugitive  by 
the  master  or  his  agent.  The  constitution  requires  a  claim ;  the 
statute  contents  itself  with  a  notice ;  and  the  declaration  dispenses 
with  both. 

The  pertinent  averment,  in  the  first  count,  is  in  these  words  : — 
"  For  that  whereas,  a  certain  person,  to  wit,  Andrew,  aged  about 
thirty  years,  Letta,  aged  about  twenty  years,  on  the  23d  day 
of  May,  1842,  at  Boone  county,  in  the  state  of  Kentucky,  was  the 
slave  of,  and  in  possession  of  the  plaintiff,  and  his  property,  and 
owed  service,  and  was  held  to  labor  to  the  plaintiff  by  the  laws 
of  Kentucky,  unlawfully,  wrongfully  and  unjustly,  without  the 
license,  and  against  the  will  of  the  plaintiff,  departed  and  went 
away  from  and  out  of  the  service  of  the  plaintiff'  at  said  Boone 
county,  and  came  to  the  defendant,  at  Hamilton  county,  in  the 
state  and  district  of  Ohio,  and  was  there  a  fugitive  from  labor, 
and  the  defendant  well  knowing  that  said  Andrew  was  the  slave 
of  the  plaintiff,  and  a  fugitive  from  labor,"  &c. 

The  second  count  contains  the  following  statement — "  Whereas, 
on  the  day  and  year  aforesaid,  at  said  Boone  county,  a  certain 
person,  to  wit,  Andrew,  aged  about  thirty  years,  was  the  slave  of, 
and  in  the  possession  of  the  plaintiff',  and  his  property,  and  owed 
service,  and  was  held  to  labor  to  the  plaintiff",  by  the  laws  of  the 
state  of  Kentucky,  did,  unlawfully,  wrongfully,  and  unjustly, 
without  the  license  or  consent,  and  against  the  will  of  the  plaintiff, 
depart  and  go  away  from,  and  out  of  his  service,  to  wit,  at  Boone 
county,  aforesaid,  and  came  to  Hamilton  county,  in  the  state  and 
district  of  Ohio,  to  the  defendant.  And  the  defendant  had  notice 

\  Constitution  U.  S.  Art.  iv.  §  2.  t  Act  1793,  §  8,  4. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  483 

that  the  said  Andrew  was  the  slave  of  the  plaintiff  \  and  a  fugitive 
from  labor  •  yet  afterwards,"  &c.  &c. 

Thus,  the  declaration,  is  silent  throughout,  as  to  a  claim,  while 
a  claim  is  rendered  indispensable  by  the  constitutional  provision. 
Not  only  is  the  averment  of  notice  unfortunate,  in  its  omission  to 
show  the  facts  which  are  necessary,  but  it  is  erroneous  in  showino- 
facts  which  are  irrelevant. 

The  person  to  whom  harborage  and  concealment  are  denied,  is 
a  fugitive  from  labor,  and  that  kind  of  fugitive  is  one  who  is  held 
to  labor  in  Kentucky,  under  the  laws  thereof,  and  who  has  escaped 
into  Ohio.  The  obligation  of  the  defendant  is  fixed,  when  he  har- 
bors such  a  person,  after  receiving  notice  that  he  is  so  held  to 
labor,  and  has  so  escaped.  No  such  person  it  described  in  the 
declaration.  The  counts  abound  in  impertinent  matter.  First,  we 
may  strike  ont  all  that  is  said  of  Andrew's  age.  Again,  we  may 
strike  out  all  the  averments  that  he  was  the  slave  of  the  plaintiff, 
that  he  was  in  his  possession,  and  was  his  property.  If  these  aver- 
ments were  designed  to  show  that  Andrew  was  held  to  labor  to 
the  plaintiff,  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky,  they  are  bad,  because 
they  are  merely  argumentative.  The  statute  describes  a  person 
held  to  labor  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky.  Whether  he  was  lond 
or  free,  in,  or  out  of  the  plaintiff's  possession,  the  property  of  the 
plaintiff,  or  owner  of  the  plaintiff,  is  absolutely  unimportant.  Facts 
must  be  stated  in  pleading,  not  argued.  Only  two  simple  facts 
were  to  be  stated,  viz.,  that  Andrew  was  held  to  labor  to  the 
plaintiff  in  Kentucky,  and  that  he  escaped  out  of  that  state  into 
Ohio.  The  allegations  that  Andrew  was  a  slave,  was  property, 
and  was  possessed  by  the  plaintiff,  present  facts  from  which  the 
court  are  required  to  infer  that  Andrew  was  held  to  labor  by 
law. 

Not  only  do  these  averments  constitute  an  argument,  instead  of 
a  proposition,  but  the  argument  is  defective  and  bad.  It  proceeds 
upon  the  ground  that  all  slavery  is  lawful.  But  slavery  is  a  con- 
dition which  may  be  created  or  acknowledged  by  law,  or  it  may 
exist  without  law,  and  in  defiance  of  it.  It  consists  merely  in  a 
subjugation  of  one  person  to  the  power  of  another  ;  a  subjugation 
so  complete,  that  the  sufferer  is  deprived  of  all  rights,  political, 
social,  and  domestic.  A  prisoner  in  a  penitentiary,  or  in  unlawful 
duress,  is  a  slave — merely  a  slave.  A  man  may  be  that  abject 
thing,  made  so  by  law,  or  in  defiance  of  law,  and  yet  not  at  all  be 


484  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

held  to  labor  to  any  person  by  the  laws  of  the  state.  Nor  do  the 
averments  that  Andrew  was  the  property  of  the  plaintiff,  and  was 
in  his  possession,  aid  the  argument.  In  their  broadest  latitude, 
they  only  reaffirm  the  fact  that  Andrew  was  a  slave.  Property 
and  possession,  in  common  speech,  are  predicated  as  incidents 
belonging  to  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  ;  but  the  terms  are 
inaccurate,  without  foundation  in  law,  and  essentially  false.  The 
averments  that  Andrew  was  the  property  of  the  plaintiff,  and  that 
he  was  in  the  possession  of  the  plaintiff,  contradict  the  very  pro- 
position which  alone  is  essential,  viz.,  that  Andrew  was  held  to 
labor  by  law.  Slaves  can  make  no  contracts ;  they  are  held  by 
force,  not  by  laws,  and  can  assume  no  obligations.  !None  but  a 
reasoning,  moral,  accountable  being,  can  be  held  to  labor  by  law. 
Hence,  the  propriety  of  the  term  persons  in  the  Constitution  and 
in  the  statute ;  for  only  persons,  not  things,  can  be  "  held  "  by  force 
of  legal  obligation.  It  would  be  palpably  absurd  to  say  of  a  sheaf 
of  wheat,  or  of  a  marble  shaft,  or  even  of  a  dog,  a  horse,  or  an 
elephant,  however  absolute  the  rights  of  property,  or  possession, 
over  it,  that  the  senseless  thing  was  "  held  "  to  stand,  or  move,  or 
labor,  by  the  laws  of  the  state.  If  Andrew  were  a  thing  or  a 
brute,  then  he  could  not  be  the  subject  of  an  obligation  to  labor. 
The  institution  of  slavery  accustoms  us  to  confound  the  broadest 
distinctions  in  nature,  not  less  than  to  subvert  the  plainest  prin- 
ciples of  justice.  The  right  of  individual  property  is  derived  from 
the  consent  of  the  Creator.  When  he  had  finished  a  world,  and 
filled  it  with  bounties,  he  gave  to  the  last  being  created  to  inhabit, 
and  the  only  one  capable  of  governing  it,  DOMINION,  or  the  right 
of  property,  and  that  dominion  was  universal ;  and,  yet,  man  was 
excepted  from  it.  The  right  of  dominion  by  man  over  inert  mat- 
ter, and  irrational  beings,  could  not  be  complete,  if  one  man  could 
be  made  the  property  of  another  man,  or  could  be  reduced  into 
his  possession.  Happily,  God  has  deprived  us  of  the  power  to 
abridge  this  great  dominion  in  such  a  way,  by  making  the  mind, 
the  soul,  the  heart,  the  affections  of  every  man,  more  truly  inde- 
pendent of  all  human  power  than  the  subtlest  and  most  elastic 
substance  unendowed  with  life.  We  may  then  safely  strike  out 
of  this  declaration  all  the  averments  of  possession  and  property, 
and  the  argument  of  Andrew's  obligation  to  labor,  by  law,  will 
then  rest  upon  the  naked  proposition  that  he  was  the  plaintiff's 
slave. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  485 

I  illustrate  the  objection  already  made  by  asking  your  honors  to 
suppose,  that  this  were  an  action  by  a  citizen  of  New  York  against 
a  citizen  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  declaration  remained  in  the 
same  form.  Would  not  the  averments  that  Andrew  was  a  slave  be 
palpably  absurd,  and  would  it  not  be  absolutely  impossible  for  the 
court  to  infer  that  he  was  held  to  labor  in  the  state  of  New  York, 
from  the  fact,  that  he  was  a  slave  of  the  plaintiff  there  ?  He  might, 
indeed,  be  a  slave,  even  there ;  and  lawfully  so :  and  yet,  be  held 
by  no  obligation  to  labor.  A  declaration  cannot  be  good  in  an 
action  by  a  plaintiff  residing  in  Kentucky,  which  would  not  be  good 
in  an  action  brought  by  a  citizen  of  New  York,  unless  it  showed 
by  apt  averment  that  a  citizen  of  Kentucky  had  rights  concerning 
the  subject  matter  which  were  not  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  New 
York. 

Again.  The  pleader  has  supposed,  that  a  legal  obligation  to 
labor  is  a  consequence  of  slavery,  especially  if  tolerated  by  law. 
But  slavery  is  a  condition,  subject  to  many  modifications.  Will 
our  adversaries  deny,  that  the  constitutional  protection  given  to 
the  master,  and  the  legal  remedy  given  by  statute,  are  as  effectual 
to  recapture  as  well  the  infant,  the  female,  the  decrepit  slave,  as 
the  vigorous  and  manly  Andrew  ?  But  will  not  your  honors  re- 
quire it  to  be  shown,  that  such  persons,  although  slaves,  in  Ken- 
tucky, are  held  to  labor  by  the  laws  of  that  very  enlightened 
commonwealth  ?  .  The  princes  of  India,  the  barbarous  chiefs  that 
roam  over  the  deserts  of  Africa,  and  the  Indian  warriors  of  our 
own  forests,  are  all  slaveholders ;  yet  even  their  unbridled  despot- 
ism distinguishes  between  the  vile  subject  of  menial  servitude, 
and  the  fair  captive  who  yields  the  pleasures  of  a  princely  bed, 
or  the  heroic  prisoner  who  is  detained  in  honorable  bondage  as  a 
hostage,  or  for  ransom,  or,  it  may  be,  for  sacrifice.  When  slavery 
is  asserted  here,  what  is  meant  is  slavery  as  understood  in  the  com- 
mon speech  of  mankind,  and  in  that  common  speech  an  obligation 
to  labor  is  not  an  indispensable  attribute  of  that  relation.  It  is  not 
all  of  death  to  die — nor  is  it  all  of  slavery  to  labor.  Strike  then, 
from  this  declaration  the  averment  that  Andrew  was  a  slave,  and 
nothing  will  remain  to  indicate  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  deprive 
him  of  "  harborage,"  but  the  averment  which,  following  the  very 
general  language  of  the  statute,  says,  he  was  held  to  labor. 

The  person  who  may  not  be  harbored  is  a  fugitive,  who  by 
virtue  of  the  municipal  law  is  held  to  labor  for  another  person, 


486  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

and  who  escaping  from  his  servitude  may  be  seized,  or  arrested ; 
and  this  court  have  said  he  may  be  seized  or  arrested  without  proof 
or  even  process,  and  may  be  transported  back  in  bonds  and  chains, 
and  with  stripes,  into  his  former  estate  of  cheerless,  hopeless,  servi- 
tude. This  portion  of  the  Constitution  and  the  statute  were  framed 
in  derogation  of  natural  and  social  rights.  There  may  be  states 
where  persons  are  so  held,  but  there  are  others  where  no  such  laws 
exist.  Even  in  the  communities  where  such  laws  prevail,  there  are 
many  persons  who  are  not  subjects  of  so  extraordinary  a  code.  Far 
the  largest  portion  of  the  PEOPLE  of  the  United  States  by  whom, 
and  for  whose  protection  and  happiness  the  Constitution  was  es- 
tablished, are  not  and  by  virtue  of  their  constitutions,  cannot  be 
subjected  under  any  such  laws.  There  is  therefore,  a  lawful  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  every  man,  in  the  United  States,  and  of 
every  man  in  Kentucky,  and  of  every  man  in  Ohio,  even  of  this  un- 
happy Andrew,  that  he  is  free  from  legal  obligations  of  menial 
servitude. 

Again.  It  is  a  duty  of  the  citizen,  and  a  duty  of  man,  in  every 
social  state,  and  even  in  savage  life,  to  give  necessary  shelter, 
comfort,  and  sustenance,  to  the  wayfaring  man,  the  stranger,  and 
the  fugitive.  Such  exiles  have  a  natural  right  to  demand  protec- 
tion and  charity.  That  right  is  sustained  by  divine  laws.  The 
act  of  1793,  however  necessary,  or  even  just  its  provisions,  by  for- 
bidding hospitalities  to  a  class  excepted  from  among  all  other  men, 
is  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  citizenship,  and  of  manhood. 
Therefore  it  must  be  construed  strictly  for  these  reasons,  as  well 
as  because  it  is  a  penal  law.  The  plaintiff  who  complains,  that 
his  debtor  has  been  wrongfully  harbored,  must  show  that  he  was 
held  to  labor  under  the  laws  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled  ;  and 
when  demanding  the  penalty,  for  forbidden  charity,  must  show 
that  the  offender  had  notice  that  the  guest  was  so  held.  Now  this 
declaration  fails  to  show  any  such  thing.  It  is  only  charged  that 
the  fugitive  was  held  to  labor  by  the  laws  of  Kentucky.  But  it 
is  not  shown  by  what  laws,  how  enacted,  and  by  whom,  when,  or 
for  what  cause — how  the  fugitive  had  incurred  such  calamitous 
disfranchisement,  what  was  the  nature  of  the  labor  to  be  rendered, 
and  when  to  be  performed  ?  on  what  condition  of  birth,  color,  con- 
tract, or  crime,  disfranchisement  attached ;  in  what  court  or  tribu- 
nal, civil,  martial  or  chivalric,  the  fugitive  had  been  heard  before 
the  penalty  of  the  law  was  enforced  ?  what  was  the  form  of  the 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  487 

judgment,  what  was  the  period  of  his  disfranchisement ;  and  when 
it  would  end  ?  The  words  "  held  to  labor  to  the  plaintiff,  by  the 
laws  of  Kentucky"  give  no  information.  "Whether  the  defend- 
ant was  so  held,  is  a  question  of  law ;  an  inference  to  be  drawn 
from  facts  to  be  stated.  But  here  the  inference  only  is  charged, 
without  any  facts  from  which  it  is  drawn.  By  the  laws  of  Ken- 
tucky, a  debtor  is  held  to  perform  a  decree  of  its  courts.  In  an 
action  on  such  a  decree,  would  a  declaration  be  sustained,  which 
charged  merely  that  the  defendant  was  held  to  perform  a  decree 
in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  without  showing  either  the  statute,  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court,  the  cause  of  action,  or  the  substance  or 
form  of  the  judgment? 

ISTor  is  this  declaration  less  unfortunate  in  charging  that  An- 
drew was  a  fugitive.  The  language  of  the  act  describes  the 
fugitive  as  "one  who  shall  escape  into  any  other  of  the  said 
states."  The  person  described  in  the  declaration  is  distinguish- 
ed as  one  "  who  unlawfully,  wrongfully,  and  unjustly,  without 
the  license  or  consent,  and  against  the  will  of  the  plaintiff,  de- 
parted and  went  away  from  and  out  of  the  service  of  the 
plaintiff  in  Kentucky,  and  came  to  the  defendant  in  Ohio,  and 
was  there  a  fugitive  from  labor."  These  latter  words  have  the 
same  vice  with  other  portions  of  the  declaration  already  exam- 
ined. They  charge  an  inference  in  law,  derived  from  previous 
facts.  If  the  facts  be  sufficient,  an  averment  of  the  conclusion  is 
superfluous.  If  the  facts  be  insufficient,  the  conclusion  fails. 
We  therefore  strike  out  the  words  "  and  was  there  a  fugitive 
from  labor,"  and  then  nothing  is  left  but  studious  circumlocu- 
tion, to  evade  a  statement  of  the  essential  fact  that  Andrew  not 
only  escaped  from  servitude  in  the  place  of  his  detention  in  Ken- 
tucky, but  effected  a  continuous  escape  into  the  state  of  Ohio. 
It  is  not  enough  that  he  "  departed  and  went  away  from  and  out 
of  the  plaintiff's  service  in  Boone,"  nor  yet  enough  that  his  de- 
parture was  unlawful,  was  wrongful,  was  unjust,  was  without  li- 
cense or  consent  of  the  plaintiff,  and  against  his  will.  All  this 
might  be  true,  and  yet  there  might  be  no  escape.  Under  the  law 
of  slavery,  every  slave  who  is  absent  from  his  master's  plantation 
or  workshop,  without  a  pass,  has  unlawfully,  wrongfully,  and  un- 
justly, and  without  license  and  consent  of  the  plaintiff,  and  against 
his  will,  departed  and  gone  away,  yet  he  has  not,  therefore,  es- 
caped. A  child,  wTho  without  giving  notice,  withdraws  from  the 


488  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

domestic  circle,  a  truant  school-boy  who  steals  unobserved  into  the 
fields,  does  not  escape  ;  he  is  not  a  fugitive.  There  can  be  no  es- 
cape where  there  is  no  duress — where  there  is  no  watch — where 
there  is  no  flight — where  there  is  no  pursuit — no  effort  at  recap- 
ture. Again.  An  escape  from  one  state  into  another  must  be  a 
continuous  act.  We  do  not  say  that  there  may  not  be  relaxation 
of  speed,  loitering  by  the  way,  and  intervals  of  time,  but  we  hum- 
bly insist  that  there  must  be  consistent,  persevering  purpose,  mani- 
fested by  continued  motion.  The  master  may,  by  his  neglect, 
convert  the  escape  into  peaceful,  lawful  departure — forego  his 
rights  by  faiMng  to  assert  them — waive  his  obligation  of  service 
• — and  consent  that  the  fugitive  take  rank  as  a  free  man  and  a  cit- 
izen, among  a  community  who  acknowledge,  as  a  universal 
truth,  that  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire. 

Thus  it  has  been  shown,  that  Andrew  was  not  a  fugitive  from 
labor.  It  remains  to  be  observed,  that  the  defendant  had  notice, 
and  can  be  deemed  to  have  had  notice,  only  of  the  character  and 
condition  of  Andrew,  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  declaration. 
And  it  follows,  that  the  defendant  had  not  sufficient  legal  notice 
that  the  recipient  of  his  charity  was  a  fugitive  from  labor  as 
aforesaid. 

Thirdly.  The  declaration  is  insufficient,  because  it  does  not  suf- 
ficiently show  that  the  alleged  fugitive  was  harbored  or  concealed 
by  the  defendant.  The  averments  are  vague,  and  state  only,  that 
the  defendant  "  knowingly  and  willingly  harbored,  and  detained, 
concealed,  and  kept  the  said  slave,  in  consequence  of  which,  the 
plaintiff  lost  the  slave,  his  service  and  its  benefits."  Where  har- 
borage and  concealment  are  taken  by  a  statute  from  the  category 
of  benevolence,  and  converted  into  crimes,  the  circumstances 
which  impart  criminality  must  be  shown,  that  the  court  may  de- 
termine whether  a  crime  has  been  committed.  A  warrant  for 
larceny  could  not  be  granted  by  any  magistrate  upon  a  complaint 
that  the  accused  did  steal  certain  chattels,  however  particularly 
described,  without  an  explicit  account  of  the  time,  place,  manner, 
and  circumstances  of  the  transgression,  so  that  it  might  be  known 
whether  the  taking  of  the  property  was  innocent  or  felonious. 
The  declaration  in  this  respect,  as  in  all  others,  is  not  aided  by  the 
general  words,  "  wrongfully,"  and  "  unlawfully,  wilfully  and 
knowingly.*  The  rule  here  claimed  is  universally  applied  in 

*  Gould's  Pleadings,  chap.  iv.  §  29. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  489 

pleading.  An  indictment  for  murder  is  bad  if  it  do  not  show 
how  the  crime  was  committed,  and  describe  the  instrument,  the 
wound,  and  the  death.  A  declaration  for  an  assault  must  describe 
the  weapon ;  for  slander,  must  specify  the  words ;  for  trespass, 
the  manner  of  committing  the  violence;  for  an  assumpsit,  the 
promise  ;  for  a  debt,  the  obligation. 

Again,  the  offence,  whether  of  harboring,  or  of  concealing, 
must  be  fraudulent,  and  be  so  described.  In  Dark  vs.  Martin,* 
the  action  was  brought  for  harboring  a  slave.  The  defendant 
showed  that  he  detained  the  servant  under  a  claim  of  title.  The 
court  decided  that  the  action  could  not  be  sustained. 

POINT  II. 

THE  EVIDENCE  WAS  IMPROPER  AND  INSUFFICIENT. 

1.  It  appears  from  the  questions  certified  by  their  Honors,  the 
Judges  of  the  Circuit  Court,  that  no  notice  whatever  of  the  al- 
leged fact  of  the  defendant's  legal  servitude,  or  of  his  escape,  was 
communicated  by  the  plaintiff,  or  any  person  in  his  behalf,  either 
in  writing  or  verbally,  to  the  defendant,  before  he  committed  the 
acts   of  harborage    and   concealment    complained   of.       If   the 
court  sustain  the  positions  which  have  been  already  illustrated, 
they  will  instruct  the  Circuit  Judges,  that  proof  of  knowledge 
by    the    defendant,  that    Andrew  was   a  slave  and    a   fugitive, 
however  clear,  and  however  acquired,  was  not  equivalent  to  the 
notice  required  by  the  statute,  or   a  substitute  for  it.     The  act 
of  1193    can  only  be  sustained  by  treating  the  notice  which  it 
prescribes  as  a  claim  of  the  fugitive  made  by  the  master.     Such 
claim  could  only  be  made  by  him  directly  or  indirectly,  and  an 
equivalent  notice  must  of  course  proceed  from  him.     Whether  it 
should  be  averred  with  due  particularity,  in  the  declaration  or 
not,  it  must  at  least  be  proved. 

2.  The  proof  of  harborage  and  concealment  was  insufficient. 
The  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  questions  certified  by 
their  honors,  the  Circuit  Judges,  present  the  acts  of  harborage 
and  concealment,  namely,  that  the  defendant  received  the  fugi- 
tive on  the  Walnut  Hills,  in  the  suburbs  of  Cincinnati,  at  three 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  from  another  person,  into  an  open  or  co- 

.  vered  wagon,  and  conveyed  him  thence,  twelve  or  fourteen  miles. 

*  2  North  Carolina  Law  Repository,  249. 


490  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

Pursuers  appeared,  who  had  no  authority  from  the  master,  and 
who  arrested  the  horses.  The  fugitive  leaped  from  his  seat  in  the 
wagon  and  escaped.  The  master  afterwards  approved  the  attempt 
at  recapture  made  by  the  pursuers,  although  it  had  been  made 
without  his  knowledge.  These  facts  might  prove  the  defendant 
guilty  of  aiding  the  escape  of  the  fugitive,  or  of  obstructing  or 
hindering  the  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  in  seizing  and  ar- 
resting the  fugitive,  but  it  is  a  total  perversion  of  language  and 
sense,  to  maintain  that  they  prove  an  act  of  harborage.  A  harbor 
is  a  place  of  rest,  repose,  security,  inaction.  In  its  nautical  sense, 
which  is  not  its  original  application,  it  is  a  haven,  where  the  ves- 
sel is  moored,  its  sails  are  furled ;  its  burden  discharged,  or  a  new 
one  received.  The  French  designate  one  of  their  principal  ports 
La  Havre,  and  we  one  of  ours,  New  Haven.  The  idea  of  motion, 
progress,  flight,  or  escape,  is  absolutely  excluded.  The  vessel  is 
exposed  to  search  and  seizure  by  all  who  have  lawful  right  to  en- 
ter the  haven.  The  meaning  of  the  word  in  its  original  applica- 
tion to  a  place  upon  the  land  is  not  less  definite  and  exclusive  of 
ideas  of  motion,  progress,  or  action.  Her  lerg,  the  hill,  or  secure 
place  where  the  army  rested  on  its  march.  No  word  in  our  capa- 
cious and  ever  changing  language  has  more  obstinately  retained 
its  original  significance.  Whether  the  subject  of  its  application 
be  good  or  bad,  the  word  invariably  implies  rest,  a  home.  Thus, 
an  old  poet  says : 

"  But  •worthy  of  her  trade,  which  most  of  all  her  grieves, 
The  basest  beggar's  bawd,  a  harborer  of  thieves." 

So  beauty  and  precision  were  both  sacrficed  by  our  modern 
translators,  when  they  dropped  the  word  which  they  found  in 
Wickliffe's  Bible,  "  For  I  was  hungrey  and  yee  gave  me  meate, 
thirsty,  and  yee  gave  me  drink,  naked,  and  yee  clothed  me,  har- 
louryeless,  and  ye  visited  me." 

So  another  translator,  if  it  be  not  profane  to  say  so,  imparts 
force  and  elegance  to  the  language  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  de- 
scribes the  Love  which  opens  the  gates  of  Heaven,  and  makes  its 
test  to  be — 

"  Whether  she  have  to  her  smal  power  ben  herberous  to  the 
Sainctes,  lodged  them,  and  washed  their  fete." 

The  common  law,  although  it  abhors  slavery,  has  been  made  by 
American  legislators,  to  furnish  the  form  of  remedies  for  the  re- 
caption of  fugitives,  and  affords  us  apt  and  conclusive  illustrations 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  491 

to  prove  as  well  all  the  points  before  maintained,  as  that  now  un- 
der argument.  Thus  under  the  statute  of  23d,  Henry  II.  in  the 
new  Natura  Brevium  167-168 — "  if  a  man  retain  my  servant, 
whereby  the  servant  departeth  from  me,  and  goeth  to  serve  the 
other,  I  shall  have  an  action  against  him ;  but  if  the  new  master 
did  not  know  that  he  is  my  servant,  no  action  lies,  unless  he  after- 
ward refused  to  restore  him  upon  information  and  demand" 

So  the.  English  pleader  is  informed  by  Jacobs  in  his  law  diction- 
ary, that  harboring  does  not  mean  aiding  a  servant  to  flee,  and  also, 
that  it  is  advisable  to  give  notice  to  the  intended  defendant  that 
the  party  is  servant  to  the  plaintiff,  and  to  demand  him.  •  The  au- 
thor adds — "  that  proving  such  notice,  and  a  subsequent  demand, 
will  entitle  the  plaintiff  to  a  verdict"  These  excellent  instructions 
were  derived  from  that  inexhaustible  volume  of  sound  law,  the 
new  Natura  JBrevium. 

"  An  action  will  lie  for  continuing  to  employ  the  servant  of 
another  AFTER  NOTICE,  though  the  employer  did  not  procure  the 
servant  to  leave  his  master."* 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  evidence  upon  which  the  defendant's 
conviction  rests  was  improper  and  insufficient,  under  the  first  count ; 
because,  first,  it  showed  not  an  act  of  harboring,  but  the  antago- 
nistical  act  of  removing  a  fugitive ;  secondly,  because  there  was 
no  evidence  of  the  previous  notice  and  claim,  which  were  neces- 
sary to  maintain  the  action. 

The  evidence  under  the  second  count,  (which  charges  an  act  of 
concealment  of  the  fugitive,)  is  subject  to  the  same  exception. 
Harboring  and  concealment  are  convertible  terms ;  or  at  most,  the 
offence  of  concealment  is  created  to  prevent  an  escape  from  con- 
viction under  the  very  technical  offence  of  harboring.  The  act 
of  concealment,  when  charged,  must  be  clearly  and  distinctly 
proved.  Concealment  implies  a  place,  time,  and  circumstances  of 
seclusion — a  roof,  a  chamber,  a  dell,  a  forest,  a  cave  or  some  place 
of  the  like  solitude.  And  yet  their  honors,  the  judges  of  the  cir- 
cuit court,  have  propounded  to  this  tribunal  the  question,  "  whether 
the  transportation  of  a  person  in  an  open  wagon,  attended  by  eight 
others,  on  the  high-road,  from  the  Walnut  Hills,  which  overlook 
the  populous  city  of  Cincinnati,  forty  miles  on  the  high-road 
towards  the  busy  town  of  Lebanon,  was  not  a  concealment"  It 
is  true  that  this  journey  was  begun  at  three  o'clock  in  the  morning, 

*  Black  vs.  Layton,  6,  Durnford  &  East,  221. 


492  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

and  one  of  the  questions  modifies  the  case  by  assuming  that  the 
wagon  was  covered,  (by  a  curtain  or  a  sheet).  But  vehicles  which 
secure  their  inmates  from  observance,  or  from  inclement  weather 
by  more  substantial  screens,  are  in  universal  use ;  and  are  never 
resorted  to  for  purposes  of  solitude,  especially  when  in  motion 
upon  the  high-way,  exposed  to  the  intrusion  of  the  idle,  the  in- 
quisitive, and  the  malicious.  In  the  nature  of  things,  such  car- 
riages afibrd  no  harborage,  and  furnish  no  concealment,  though 
they  may  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  both.  If  the  shades 
of  night  covered  the  fugitives  on  their  departure  from  the  Walnut 
Hills,  they  equally  concealed  at  the  same  hour,  the  master,  the 
pursuers,  and  the  world  around.  The  darkness  was  an  adventi- 
tious circumstance.  The  day  must  have  dawned  on  the  Walnut 
Hills,  (April  23d,)  as  early  as  3  o'clock.  But  if  this  be  incorrect, 
the  sun  was  sure  to  set  on  the  dwellers  in  Lebanon,  before  the  fu- 
gitive could  have  reached  that  anticipated  harbor.  We  admit 
that  the  circumstances  raise  a  presumption  of  an  intention  or  pur- 
pose to  prevent  a  recapture.  But  that  is  not  now  in  question. 

The  only  question  is,  whether  the  plaintiff  harbored  or  concealed 
the  fugitive,  AFTER  NOTICE  and  CLAIM. 

Thirdly.  There  was  no  proof  that  Andrew  had  escaped  before 
the  defendant  received  notice  and  harbored  him.-  It  has  been  al- 
ready said  that  the  term  escape  has  a  fixed  and  precise  meaning, 
and  implies  more  than  simple  unlicensed  absence.  Yet  such  ab- 
sence only  was  proved.  The  word  escape  comes  to  us  from  the 
French  Echapper.  It  is  never  applied  to  merely  open,  simple,  un- 
licensed departure,  but  implies  escape  from  constraint,  or  duress, 
and  includes  ideas  of  flight,  pursuit,  or  design  to  pursue. 

"  When  his  person  eagerly  pursued, 

"  Hardly,  by  boat,  escapd  the  multitude." 

Daniels'  Civil  Wars. 

"  Bos.  He  is  fled,  Hee  \sfled,  and  dares  not  sit  it  out 
"  Bro.  What,  has  hee  made  an  escape  ?     Which  way  ? 
Follow,  Neighbor !" 

Bartholomew  Fair. 

The  principle  here  insisted  upon,  is  in  harmony  with  the  de- 
cisions under  the  code  of  slavery.  There  are  many  cases  in  which 
it  has  been  decided  that  escape  does  not  apply  to  a  case  where  the 
slave  has  been  carried  out  of  the  state  by  his  master,  although  he 
then  delivers  himself  by  flight.* 

*  Ex  parte,  Simons,  4  Wash,  C.  C.  R.  896. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  493 

Now  not  only  is  no  escape  from  Kentucky  into  Ohio  charged, 
but  none  was  proved.  All  we  know  is  that  the  slaves  were/ozmd 
in  Ohio  by  the  defendant.  We  humbly  submit  that  this  court 
should  instruct  the  circuit  court  of  Ohio,  that  it  must  be  clearly 
and  satisfactorily  shown  in  this  action,  not  only  that  the  alleged 
fugitive  was  held  to  labor  by  law  in  Kentucky,  but  that  he  es- 
caped into  Ohio. 

POINT  III. 

THE  LAW  OF  1793  is  IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  ORDINANCE  FOR  THE  GO- 
VERNMENT or  THE  TERRITORY  NORTHWEST  OF  THE  OHIO,  PASSED 

1787,    AND   IS    THEREFORE    VOID. 

A  great  diversity  of  opinion  exists  in  the  United  States,  concern- 
ing the  proper  construction  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  in  relation  to  slavery.     Some  receive  it  as  a  gospel  of  uni- 
versal emancipation,  and  others  as  a  covenant  of  perpetual  tolera- 
tion of  slavery.     Those  who  maintain  the  latter  opinion,  fortify 
themselves  with  arguments  derived  from  the  condition  of  the  coun- 
try and  the  spirit  of  the  times  when  the  Constitution  was  estab- 
lished.    It  seems  to  me  that  truth  is  found  on  both  sides  of  the 
controversy.     The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  its  general 
scope  and  spirit,  recognizes  the  absolute  natural  rights  of  mankind, 
and  it  contemplates  an  ultimate  condition  of  perfect  democratic 
liberty  and  equality.     On  the  other  hand,  it  contains  provisions 
(adopted  doubtlessly  by  way  of  compromise),  which  have  served 
but  too  well  to  fortify  an  institution  whose  existence  nearly  all  re- 
flecting and  candid  men  deplore.     Slavery  is  only  the  negation  or 
privation  of  that  liberty  which  is  the  birthright  of  all  men.     It 
results  from  an  ascendency  of  physical  force  which  always  obtains 
in  rude  communities,  and  never  finally  disappears  in  any  state, 
until  intellectual  and   moral  agencies  are  fully  developed.     Let 
slavery  receive    what    name    or  form  it   may,  it  is  always  the 
same — subjection  of  the  weak  to  the  strong.     The  progress  of  our 
race  is  so  slow,  that  Liberty  never  all  at  once,  achieves  an  abso- 
lute triumph,  and  every  advantage  gained  is  followed  by  reaction. 
Thus  African  slavery,  unjust  as  it  is  conceded  to  be,  long  as  it  has 
endured,  and  long  as  it  may  be  yet  destined  to  endure,  is  only  the 
reaction  of  the  principle  of  physical  force  by  which  it  has  compen- 
sated itself  for  the  loss  of  feudal  villeinage,  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury in  Western  Europe.     So  the  emancipation  of  Europe  seems 

VOL.  1—32. 


494  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

to  heave  mysteriously  drawn  after  it  the  desecration  of  a  new  con- 
tinent, with  a  darker,  more  degrading,  and  severer  system  of 
oppression.  Labor  was  needed  to  reclaim,  suddenly,  a  wide  do- 
main from  the  sovereignty  of  Nature.  Voluntary  labor  stood 
upon  terms  too  high  for  contract,  and  therefore  physical  force 
sought  and  subjugated  involuntary  labor.  Slavery,  wherever 
found,  was  not  created  by  law,  but  obtained  its  establishment  by 
evasion  or  subversion  of  law.  It  spread  at  an  early  period  through- 
out Virginia,  although  the  charter  secured  to  all  whom  the  colo- 
nial corporation  should  lead  thither  "  all  the  liberties,  franchises, 
and  immunities  of  free  denizens,  and  natural  subjects  within  any 
of  the  British  Dominions,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  if  they  had 
been  abiding  at  home,  within  the  realm  of  England,  or  in  others  of 
his  majesty's  dominions."*  Slavery  was  thus  excluded  by  royal 
inhibition  from  the  territory  now  included  within  the  state  of  Ken- 
tucky, and  yet  it  took  root  and  flourished  in  defiance  of  law,  until 
it  overshadowed  the  state.  The  cause  of  human  liberty,  however 
baffled,  never  rests,  and  in  the  eighteenth  century  it  had  borrowed 
new  vigor  from  philosophy  and  the  diffusion  of  Christianity.  The 
movement  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  which  now  excites  so  much 
apprehension  in  portions  of  our  country,  is  by  no  means  as  modern, 
as  those  who  think  it  can  be  suppressed,  suppose.  It  began  in  a 
meeting  of  Friends,  in  London,  in  1727,  and  proceeded  so  slowly 
that  it  did  not  expel  the  institution  from  the  British  dominions 
until  after  the  lapse  of  one  hundred  and  seven  years.  Fifty-six 
years  were  spent  before  the  abolitionists  could  obtain  a  reading  in 
the  British  Parliament  of  a  petition  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave- 
trade,  and  that  trade  was  not  finally  abolished  within  what  were 
the  British  colonies  on  this  continent,  until  1807.  The  agitation 
of  abolition  in  England,  reached,  and  sensibly  affected  the  colonies 
previously  to  the  Eevolution,  and  the  Declaration  of  American 
Independence  bears  memorable  testimony  of  the  high  tone  which 
the  American  mind  had  then  assumed.  The  representatives  who 
assumed  to  pronounce  in  1776,  a  separation  of  this  country  from 
the  parent  state,  were  so  deeply  imbued  with  the  sentiment  of 
abolition,  that  they  confided  the  task  of  preparing  the  immortal 
declaration  to  John  Adams,  an  obstinate  hater  of  slavery,  and 
Thomas  Jefferson,  a  young,  enthusiastic,  and  open  abolitionist. 
But  emancipation  was  destined  in  its  turn  to  suffer  reaction.  The 

*  Charter  of  Virginia,  by  James  2d,  1609,  LittelPs  Laws  of  Ky.  vol.  1.  p.  11. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  495 

next  legislative  preceding  in  which  we  discover  traces  of  public 
sentiment  on  the  subject,  are  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
adopted  on  the  ninth  of  July,  1778.  Although  only  two  years  had 
elapsed,  Congress,  in  establishing  the  elective  franchise,  no  longer 
spoke  of  all  men  as  "  free  and  equal,"  but  provided  for  securino- 
liberties  and  privileges  to  the  FREE  inhabitants  of  each  of  the 
states.  ^Nevertheless  emancipation  maintained  a  retarded  progress. 
In  1780,  the  peaceful  and  spiritual  disciples  of  Penn,  abolished 
slavery  in  the  republic  he  had  founded  on  the  shores  of  the  Dela- 
ware, and  the  descendants  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  the  same  year  ex- 
tended the  blessings  which  they  enjoyed  to  the  slaves  remaining 
within  the  state  they  had  founded  around  the  Bay  of  Massachu- 
setts. But  Virginia  had  cherished  the  viper  in  her  bosom  so  long, 
that  its  poison  was  diffused  throughout  her  whole  frame.  Al- 
though she  had  given  to  the  world  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  the  more  awful  character  who  had  estab- 
lished that  charter  of  universal  freedom,  she  was  not  prepared  to 
relinquish  slavery. 

When  the  revolution  had  closed,  and  while  the  articles  of  con- 
federation were  yet  in  force,  some  five  thousand  persons  had  made 
a  settlement  on  the  northern  bank  of  the  Ohio,  and  were  extend- 
ing civilization  over  a  wide  and  beautiful  region,  washed  on  the 
north  by  the  distant  northern  lakes,  bounded  on  the  east  by  Vir- 
ginia and  Pennsylvania,  and  reaching  westward  to  the  Spanish 
possessions  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  over  which  several 
states  asserted  conflicting  claims  of  sovereignty.  On  the  thirteenth 
day  of  July,  1787,  Congress,  then  representing  all  these  states, 
with  their  consent  established  an  ordinance  concerning  that  do- 
main. This  act  provided  for  the  subdivision  of  the  territory  into 
states,  and  their  admission,  when  sufficiently  populous,  into  the 
Federal  Union.  Under  that  ordinance,  four  states  have  been 
erected  and  admitted,  which  are  now  represented  in  the  federal 
councils  by  eight  senators  and  thirty  representatives,  and  contain 
two  millions  of  free  and  prosperous  people.  The  people,  in  the  com- 
prehensive use  of  the  term,  include  all  men  within  a  particular  juris- 
diction. To  secure  the  people  within  that  territory,  throughout 
all  generations,  against  any  possible  intrusion  of  the  principle  of 
physical  force  in  their  respective  communities,  it  was  solemnly 
declared  and  promulgated  by  that  ordinance,  that  its  design  was 
to  extend  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 


496  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

which  formed  the  basis  whereon  the  American  republics,  their 
laws  and  constitutions  were  erected ;  and  to  fix  and  establish  these 
principles  as  the  basis  of  all  laws,  constitutions,  and  governments 
which  forever  thereafter  should  be  formed  in  the  said  territory, 
and  for  admission  of  the  states  thus  to  be  created  to  a  share  in  the 
federal  councils,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  at  as 
early  periods  as  might  be  consistent  with  the  general  interests.  It 
was  farther  declared  that,  for  those  purposes,  the  articles  of  that 
memorable  ordinance  were  set  forth  and  should  be  considered  as 
ARTICLES  OF  COMPACT  between  the  original  states  and  the  people 
and  states  in  the  said  territory,  and  should  forever  remain  unalter- 
able, unless  by  common  consent.  The  ordinance  then  proceeded 
to  lay  the  foundation  of  those  future  states,  and  the  first  was  a 
declaration  of  absolute  and  universal  liberty  of  conscience.  The 
second  secured  to  every  inhabitant  of  the  territory,  then  and  there- 
after, forever,  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the  right  of  bail. 
The  third  united  in  auspicious  conjunction  guaranties  of  moral 
and  religious  education  to  youth  within  the  territory,  and  of  per- 
petual good  faith  to  the  Indian  nations.  The  fourth  was  a  gua- 
ranty to  the  new  states  to  be  formed  of  a  right  of  union  with  the 
original  states,  on  the  sole  condition  that  such  new  states  should 
adopt  forms  of  government  which  should  be  republican,  and  in 
conformity  to  the  principles  of  that  fundamental  compact.  The 
last  and  crowning  one  of  all  was  this  declaration  : — There  shall  he 
neither  slavery,  nor  involuntaiy  servitude,  within  the  territory, 
otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes  (with  this  SOLE  quali- 
fication,} provided,  always,  that  any  person  escaping  into  the  tem4- 
tory,from  wtiom  labor  or  service  shall  be  lawfully  claimed,  in  any 
one  of  the  ORIGINAL  states,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed, 
and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  service* 

This  ordinance  took  effect  on  the  13th  of  July,  1787,  and  even 
if  it  do  not  control  the  Constitution,  which  was  adopted  about  the 
same  time,  it  is  a  valuable  cotemporaneous  exposition  of  the 
temper  and -sentiments  of  the  American  people  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  Kentucky  was  admitted  into  the  Union  on  the  first  day 
of  June,  1792 ;  five  years  after,  the  ordinance  for  the  government 
c£  the  territory  north-west  of  the  Ohio  was  established.  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  bears  date  in  September,  1787,  but 
went  into  effect  on  the  4th  of  March,  1789.  Kentucky,  having 

*  Benn's  Laws  U.  S.  vol.  I,  p.  60. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  497 

come  into  the  Union  after  that  ordinance,  was  bound  by  its  cove- 
nants. The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted  after 
that  ordinance,  and  so  far  as  related  to  the  territory  north-west  of 
the  Ohio,  was  necessarily  and  inherently  subject  to  the  same 
covenants.  The  word  ORIGINAL,  in  the  ordinance,  manifestly  im- 
plies that  the  right  to  recapture  fugitive  slaves  should  be  limited 
to  the  thirteen  states  then  in  existence,  and  Kentucky,  by  entering 
the  Union  afterward,  acquiesced  in  that  solemn  agreement.  Ohio 
has  the  distinguished  honor  of  being  the  first  of  the  twenty-nine 
confederated  American  states  whose  soil  never  received  the  im- 
print of  a  slave.  Ohio  came  into  the  Union  in  1802,  with  a  con- 
stitution jealously  reciting  the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  expressly 
declaring  its  continued  validity,  and  elaborating  its  fundamental 
principles  in  these  emphatic  words  : 

"  There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  hereditary  servitude  introduced  within  the  stale 
otherwise  than  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con- 
victed ;  nor  shall  any  male  person  who  shall  have  arrived  at  the  aye  of  twenty-one  years, 
or  female  person  who  shall  have  arrived  at  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  be  held  to  serve  any 
person  as  a  servant,  under  the  pretence  of  indenture,  or  othencise,  unless  such  person  shall 
enter  into  such  indenture  when  in  a  state  of  perfect  freedom,  and  on  condition  of  bonajide 
consideration,  received,  or  to  be  received,  for  their  service  ;  nor  shall  any  indenture  of  any 
negro,  or  mulatto,  hereafter  made  and  executed  out  of  the  state,  or  if  made  in  the  state, 
where  Uie  term  of  service  exceeds  one  year,  be  of  the  least  validity." 

On  the  23d  of  April,  1842,  Andrew,  a  man  of  thirty  years,  was 
found  on  the  "Walnut  Hills,  in  Ohio,  at  large,  a  freeman — free  as 
to  all  the  world,  at  least,  except  the  person  who  had  before  claimed 
his  services  in  the  state  of  Kentucky.  There  could  be  no  slavery 
or  involuntary  servitude  in  Ohio.  By  what  right  was  he  pursued, 
and  by  force  of  what  law  was  it  wrong  to  harbor  and  conceal  him 
from  his  pursuers  ?  We  are  answered,  "  By  the  law  of  1793." 
But  that  law  was  a  violation  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  so  far  as 
the  state  of  Ohio  was  concerned,  if  it  be  construed  to  extend  the 
right  of  recapture  beyond  the  original  thirteen  states,  to  the  infant 
state  of  Kentucky.  Kentucky  was  not  one  of  the  original  states ; 
she  came  into  the  Union  after  notice  of  the  ordinance,  and  acqui- 
esced in  it.  But  it  may  be  said,  that  the  Constitution  had  inter- 
posed between  the  ordinance  and  the  admission  of  Kentucky. 
This  is  true ;  but  the  Constitution  was  framed  when  there  were 
only  the  original  thirteen  states ;  and  it  was  to  be  expounded  as 
to  the  new  states  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  by  their  fundamental  or- 
dinance. The  new  states — the  future  states — the  future  genera- 
tions— northwest  of  the  Ohio,  had  made  a  solemn  compact  with 


498  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

the  thirteen  states,  which  was  to  be  the  basis  of  all  new  constitu- 
tions. The  Constitution  was  cotemporaneous  with  the  compact 
made  between  the  existing  and  the  future  states.  The  Constitution 
was  never  held  then  or  since,  to  supersede  or  impair  that  compact. 
It  was  recognized  as  being  in  force  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  1800, 
which  prescribed  to  the  new  state  of  Ohio  the  basis  on  which  it 
would  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  recited  from  and  in  the  very 
language  of  the  ordinance  itself.  It  has  been  seen  that  Ohio  came 
into  the  Union  with  a  Constitution  carefully  framed  in  the  form 
and  structure  thus  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  which  was  made 
before  the  Constitution,  and  by  the  act  of  Congress  passed  after  it. 

Is  the  ordinance  of  1787  yet  in  force  ?  His  honor  the  presiding 
judge  of  the  circuit  court,  doubted.  But  surely  that  ordinance  is 
perpetual :  for  it  was  a  treaty  generously  made  by  an  intelligent 
and  powerful  confederacy,  with  four  states  yet  unborn — a  covenant 
between  the  strong  and  vigorous  actors  of  the  present,  with  un- 
seen and  unknown  generations  of  the  future,  for  the  security, 
welfare,  and  happiness  of  all ;  and  it  was  not  to  be  changed,  least 
of  all  was  it  to  be  changed  by  those  who  thus  made  it  for  the 
benefit  of  all,  without  the  common  consent  of  all.  The  thirteen 
states  who  united  in  forming  the  Constitution  could  not  change  it, 
although  all  agreed.  Ohio  could  not  change  it,  for  she  was  only 
one  of  four  new  states,  whose  consent  was  necessary,  and  the  three 
others  had  not  yet  come  into  existence.  If  that  ordinance  be  not 
in  force,  then  Ohio,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Michigan  may  severally, 
at  their  pleasure,  establish  slavery  and  hereditary  servitude,  and 
entail  their  calamities  and  curses  upon  future  millions,  to  whom 
the  thirteen  United  States  have  pledged  a  guaranty  against  them 
forever.  If  the  ordinance  be  not  in  force,  then  the  other  twenty- 
four  states  are  without  any  security  against  the  collisions  and  the 
desolations  which  the  establishment  of  slavery  in  the  northwestern 
regions  of  our  country  would  be  sure  to  produce. 

Ohio  came  into  the  Union  a  sovereign  state — a  nation.  The 
Constitution  and -the  ordinance,  in  her  hands,  contained  nothing 
which  conflicted  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  original  states ;  for 
they  had  already  declared  that  the  principles  of  that  ordinance, 
heretical  as  they  may  now  be  deemed,  were  tht  basis  of  their  own 
Constitutions.  By  the  law  of  nations,  no  state  is  bound  to  re- 
cognize slavery  in  any  other  state,  or  to  surrender  fugitives  from 
labor  or  service,  or  even  those  charged  with  or  convicted  of  crimes. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  499 

If  a  nation  assume  any  such  obligations,  it  does  so  from  comity 
merely.*  The  law  of  1793,  if  extended  so  as  to  cover  the  rela- 
tions between  Ohio  and  Kentucky,  would  oblige  Ohio  to  recognize 
slavery  in  a  new  state,  which  had  no  compact  to  that  effect,  and 
would  subvert  the  Constitution  of  Ohio,  by  introducing  slavery 
among  that  people,  to  a  certain  extent.  His  honor,  the  presiding 
judge  of  the  circuit  court,  says  that  the  act  of  1793,  does  not  con- 
flict with  the  ordinance,  nor  purport  to  repeal  any  of  its  provisions, 
or  modify  them.  But  the  act  does  affect  to  secure  the  right  of  re- 
caption to  the  state  of  Kentucky,  which  was  not  an  original  state. 

Again.  The  same  very  learned  judge,  says  the  Constitution 
does  not  prohibit  Congress  from  extending  the  power  of  recapture 
to  new  states.  Let  us  test  this  argument.  Suppose  that  the 
thirteen  states  in  Convention,  had  adopted  a  Constitution  which 
declared,  that  slavery  should  be  established  within  the  territory 
northwest  of  the  Ohio,  notwithstanding  the  ordinance  of  1787. 
"Will  any  one  contend  that  the  state  of  Ohio,  when  its  government 
should  have  been  formed  upon  the  basis  of  that  ordinance,  could 
have  been  denied  admission  into  the  Union  ?  Certainly  not.  If, 
then  the  thirteen  states  could  not  introduce  slavery  into  the  terri- 
tory northwest  of  the  Ohio,  directly  and  completely,  and  for  all 
purposes,  they  could  not  introduce  it  there  indirectly,  or  for  a  sin- 
gle purpose. 

The  article  in  the  Constitution,  which  provides  for  the  recap- 
ture of  fugitives,  secures  a  privilege  to  the  slave-holding  states, 
which  they  are  at  liberty  to  waive  or  relinquish.  Kentucky,  be- 
ing a  member  of  the  Union,  when  Ohio  was  admitted,  with  a 
constitution  limiting  her  obligation  to  surrender  to  the  original 
states,  exclusive  of  the  new  states,  relinquished  the  doubtful  bene- 
fits of  recaption. 

Again.  In  any  case  of  doubt  on  a  question  of  constitutional 
law,  there  is  a  strong  legal  presumption  against  slavery.  The 
construction  insisted  upon  by  our  adversaries  involves,  in  the  first 
place,  a  breach  of  faith,  with  new  and  powerless  communities,  and 
future  generations ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  an  offence  against 
liberty,  humanity,  and  the  welfare  of  mankind. 

I  conclude  my  argument  upon  this  interesting  part  of  our  sub- 
ject, by  humbly  directing  the  attention  of  the  court  to  authorities 
which  establish,  first,  that  the  ordinance  of  1787  remains  in  full 

*  Prigg  -os,  Pennsylvania,  16,  Wheaton,  611. 


FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

force  ;  and  secondly,  that  the  ordinance  has  the  effect  to  abolish 
slavery  for  every  purpose  within  the  territory  northwest  of  the 
Ohio,  so  that  a  slave  coming  there  from  the  Spanish  possessions  is, 
by  the  mere  act  of  treading  upon  the  soil,  redeemed  and  emanci- 
pated.* 

POINT  IV. 

THE    LAW  OF  1793,    so  FAR  AS   rrs  PROVISIONS  AFFECT   THE  QUES- 
TIONS  NOW   BEFORE  THIS    COURT,   IS   UNCONSTITUTIONAL   AND   Vom. 

The  law  is  based  upon  the  second  section  of  Article  IV.  of  the 
Constitution.  "  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor,  in  one  state, 
under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence 
of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service 
or  labor ;  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to 
whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

If  we  admit,  for  the  purpose  of  the  argument,  that  this  section 
furnishes  ground  for  the  exercise  of  legislation,  by  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  to  carry  the  section  into  execution,  we  may, 
nevertheless,  confidently  assert,  that  such  legislation  must  be  con- 
fined to  the  very  object  and  purpose  of  the  section,  and  cannot  be 
extended  further.  If  any  state  should  pass  any  law,  or  establish 
any  regulation  adapted  to  work  a  discharge  of  persons  escaping 
into  its  jurisdiction  from  lawful  obligation  of  labor  or  service,  ex- 
isting in  the  state  from  whence  they  fled,  or  to  prevent  their  deli- 
very to  proper  claimants,  Congress  might  abrogate  such  law  or 
regulation.  But  such  an  act  of  abrogation  would  be  unnecessary, 
because  the  offensive  law  or  regulation  would  be  unconstitutional, 
and  ipso  facto  void.  Here  the  constitutional  power  reposed  in 
Congress  to  legislate  on  this  subject  must  end  ;  for  the  object  of 
the  second  article  is  attained  when  such  action  or  legislation  by 
the  several  states,  is  effectually  prohibited  or  defeated.  We  admit 
that  the  section  provides  that  the  fugitive  "shall  be  delivered  up, 
on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 
But  these  are  merely  words  of  explanation,  giving  precision,  force 
and  effect  to  the  inhibition  of  the  passage  of  laws  or  adoption  of 
regulations  by  the  states  for  the  discharge  of  fugitives.  Any  law 
or  regulation  of  a  state,  which  may  work  the  discharge  of  the  fu- 

*  Story  on  the  Constitution,  Vol.  3,  183,  189.  Greeu  vs.  Biddle,  8,  Wheaton's  Eeports, 
87,  88.  Henry  and  others  vs.  Decker  and  Hopkins,  June  1,  1818.  Walkers  Mississippi 
Reports,  36.  Wheeler  on  Slavery,  340.  Menoud  vs.  Aspacia,  5,  Wheaton,  515. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  501 

gitive,  shall  be  so  absolutely  void,  that  not  only  such  consequence 
shall  not  take  effect,  but  the  right  of  recaption  shall  not  be  at  all 
affected  by  such  law  or  regulation.  The  section  would  have  full, 
complete  and  satisfactory  effect  through  judicial  action.  If  a 
person  in  any  court  of  any  state  claimed  that  another  who  had 
escaped  into  its  jurisdiction  was  lawfully  held  in  the  state  from 
whence  he  fled,  to  labor  for  the  claimant,  and  if  the  defendant 
being  either  the  person  against  whom  the  claim  was  made,  or 
any  other  person,  or  even  the  state  within  whose  jurisdiction  the 
fugitive  was  found,  should  interpose  by  plea  any  law  or  regulation 
affecting  to  discharge  him  from  such  obligation  imposed  by 
the  law  of  the  other  state,  that  plea  should  be  overruled.  The 
second  section  would  necessarily  receive  this  complete  effect  by 
the  adjudication  of  the  courts  of  law  of  the  United  States,  and  of 
every  state,  without  any  interposition  by  Congress  whatever.  JSTo 
law  of  Congress  could  give  to  the  section  any  greater  force,  effect, 
or  power  ;  because  all  laws  must  be  tried  by  the  Constitution 
before  the  Judiciary.  It  results  from  this  that  the  court  in 
which  such  a  claim  should  be  asserted,  would  be  confined  to  try 
the  questions  first,  whether  the  alleged  fugitive  from  labor  was 
held  to  labor  to  the  claimant  in  another  state  by  the  laws 
of  that  state,  and  secondly,  whether  he  had  escaped  from 
that  state  into  the  state  where  he  was  found.  And  the  court 
would  have  a  right  to  decide  upon  the  validity  of  the  laws 
of  the  other  state,  by  which  the  fugitive  was  alleged  to  be 
held  to  labor,  and  be  obliged  to  decide  upon  them  as  courts  now 
do  in  all  cases  of  conflict  of  laws.  The  court  would  be  restricted 
in  this  judicial  proceeding,  only  in  two  respects  ;  first,  they  must 
not  allow  a  plea  of  any  law  or  regulation  of  the  state  where  the 
fugitive  was  found,  to  work  his  discharge  from  an  obligation  cre- 
ated by  the  laws  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled  ;  and  secondly, 
the  court  might  perhaps  be  obliged,  by  the  last  clause  of  the  sec- 
tion, to  pronounce  judgment,  that  the  fugitive  should  be  delivered 
to  the  party  who  had  established  the  claim  to  the  labor  or  service 
of  the  fugitive.  If  it  be  assumed  that  the  courts  of  the  state,  or  of 
the  United  States,  might  disregard  the  constitutional  inhibition  : 
we  reply,  first,  that  Congress  cannot  presume,  nor  can  this  court 
presume,  that  any  court  would  be  guilty  of  a  dereliction ;  and 
secondly,  that  the  remedy  could  always  be  applied  in  a  revision 
of  the  proceedings  of  inferior  courts  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 


502  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

United  States,  whose  power  on  questions  of  constitutional  law  is 
higher  than  that  of  the  legislature. 

I  am  not  unaware  that  the  law  of  1793  grew  out  of  a  discussion 
in  the  state  of  Virginia,  which  was  thought  to  show  that  the  con- 
stitutional provision  was  not  sufficiently  explicit,  and  direct,  to 
execute  itself  propi^io  vigore.  Kor  do  I  deny  that  the  Congress  of 
1793  believed  the  enactment  of  the  law  indispensable  to  give 
effect  to  that  provision.  Kor  do  I  deny  that  in  many  cases  in  the 
courts  of  the  states,  and  in  one  memorable  case,  at  least  in  this 
court,*  the  law  has  been  sustained.  I  am  not  ignorant  that  these 
cases  are  thought  sufficient  to  preclude  any  discussion  of  the  point 
now  presented.  I  know  that  this  court,  like  all  other  courts,  will 
give  effect,  and  ought  to  give  just  effect  to  the  principle  of  stare 
deeisis ;  and  I  am  not  ignorant  that  until  very  lately,  there  has 
been  a  measured  acquiescence  to  the  act  of  Congress,  and  the 
judicial  decisions  by  which  it  has  been  sustained.  But  the  prin- 
ciple of  stare  decisis  has  its  legitimate  bounds,  even  in  the  courts 
of  common  law ;  and  it  must  be  abandoned  in  every  case  where 
it  is  found,  upon  full  and  deliberate  consideration,  under  the  gui- 
dance of  practical  experience,  or  upon  a  further  development  of 
essential  facts,  that  the  decision  insisted  upon,  however  time- 
honored  it  may  be,  is  erroneous.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  assert 
that  the  past  was  more  enlightened  than  the  future,  and  that  con- 
jectural opinions  are  better  than  wisdom  acquired  by  experience. 
Xor  is  implicit  veneration  due  to  what  is  calUd  contemporaneous 
construction.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  are  justly  deemed 
to  have  contemplated  the  growth  and  improvement  of  society  for- 
ever, and  to  have  adopted  such  general  provisions  as  would  be 
found  practicable  and  expedient  in  distant  ages.  Constructions 
adapted  to  those  ages  must  prevail,  although  they  conflict  with 
contemporaneous  opinions  and  interests.  All  contemporaneous 
construction  must  take  its  form  or  hues  more  or  less  from  existing 
interests.  The  Constitution  was  made  by  a  convention  who  pain- 
fully felt  that  slavery  existed,  but  who  also  joyfully  foresaw  that 
it  would  before  long  cease  to  be.  The  law  of  1793  was  passed 
because,  when  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1791,  demanded 
from  the  Governor  of  Virginia  three  fugitives,  not  from  slavery. 
but  horn  justice,  the  Governor  of  Virginia  answered  that  he  was 
not  authorized  to  comply  by  the  mere  authority  of  the  Constitu- 

*  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania,  16  Peters. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  503 

tion  of  the  United  States,  without  more  immediate  and  direct 
power,  for  which  he  appealed,  through  President  Washington,  to 
Congress.  Thus  it  happened  that  Congress  did,  in  fact,  by  the 
law  of  1793,  exercise  legislative  power  concerning  the  recaption 
of  fugitive  slaves  before  any  case  had  arisen  in  any  state,  which 
showed  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  ineifectual 
without  legislation.  Occasion  was  taken  of  an  embarrassment 
concerning  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice  to  fortify  slavery, 
by  giving  it  what  then,  at  least,  was  unnecessary  aid  for  the 
recapture  of  fugitives  from  labor.  The  plea  then  made  for  this 
bold  measure  was  one,  not  of  necessity,  at  least  not  of  necessity 
proved,  but  of  a  mere  analogy  between  the  constitutional  pro- 
vision relating  to  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice,  and  the 
provision  concerning  fugitives  from  labor.  It  seems  to  us  that 
the  analogy  which  was  the  only  foundation  of  the  enactment,  does 
not  exist.  In  regard  to  fugitives  from  justice,  the  Constitution  is 
direct  and  affirmative  : 

"  A  person  charged  in  any  state  with  treason,  felony,  or  other  crime,  who  shall. flee 
from  justice,  and  be  found  in  another  state,  shall,  on  demand  of  the  executive  autho- 
rity of  the  state  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up  to  be  removed  to  the  state  having 
jurisdiction  of  the  crime." 

The  principle  of  extradition  of  fugitives  horn  justice  is  one  so 
essential  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  contiguous  states,  that  some 
writers  upon  the  law  of  nations  have  insisted  that  it  was  entitled 
to  a  place  in  that  code.  "While  this  opinion  has  not  been  generally 
sustained,  it  has  been  found  expedient,  by  modern  nations,  and 
especially  by  affiliated  states,  to  establish  the  principle  by  treaty 
or  compact.  Such  has  long  been  the  case  in  the  confederated 
cantons  of  Switzerland.  The  convention,  while  framing  a  con- 
stitution, designed  to  preserve  harmony  between  the  several  states, 
and  promote  their  welfare,  naturally,  necessarily,  wisely,  and,  we 
believe,  unanimously  incorporated  a  provision  for  that  purpose  in 
the  American  Constitution.  The  provision  adopted  is  direct,  posi- 
tive, and  absolute.  It  describes  with  precision  the  person  to  be 
surrendered,  "  as  one  who  being  charged,  in  any  state,  with  treason, 
felony,  or  other  crime,  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found  in 
another  state."  What  constitutes,  treason,  felony,  or  crime,  is 
assumed  to  be  settled,  and  universally  understood.  The  word 
charged  has  legal  import,  and  implies  a  judicial  or  magisterial 
charge.  The  culprit  shall  be  demanded  by  the  executive  autho- 
rity of  the  state,  and  by  no  one  else  ;  and  it  is  fairly  implied  that 


504  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

he  shall  be  delivered  up  by  the  executive  authority  of  the  state 
where  he  is  found,  and  by  none  else  /  since,  if  any  other  authority 
were  obliged  to  execute  the  delivery,  there  would  inevitably  be 
clashing  of  the  police  of  the  several  states.  No  difficulty  was 
found  in  the  Virginia  case,  except  to  remove  the  doubt  of  the 
governor  of  that  commonwealth  concerning  his  power  to  execute 
the  surrender — a  doubt  quite  unreasonable,  and  to  be  deeply  de- 
plored for  the  consequences  which  it  has  produced.  Those  who 
contend  for  an  analogy  between  the  two  provisions  find  their 
cause  so  weak,  as  to  be  obliged  to  dwell  upon  the  merely  fortuitous 
circumstances  that  the  two  clauses  concerning  fugitives  are  found 
in  juxta-position.  But  surely  this  argument  is  of  no  value,  if  the 
provisions  exhibit  a  marked  contrast.  The  clause  concerning  fugi- 
tives from  labor,  instead  of  being  expressed  in  a  direct  and  posi- 
tive form,  and  of  imposing  an  obligation  and  a  duty  upon  the 
executive  authorities  of  the  respective  states,  is  merely  negative, 
imposes  no  such  obligation  or  duty,  and  is  content  with  merely 
denying  to  the  legislative  authorities  of  the  several  states  power 
to  hinder  or  obstruct  citizens  of  other  states  in  the  assertion  of 
lawful  claims  to  labor  or  service.  "  No  person  held  to  service  or 
labor,  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof,  shall,  in  consequence 
of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service 
or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party,"  &c. 
This  is  a  mere  announcement  of  a  principle  which  shall  be  para- 
mount, in  courts  of  justice,  to  any  local  laws  or  regulations. 

Nor  is  the  origin  of  the  principle  of  this  latter  clause,  in  any  de- 
gree the  same,  with  the  source  to  which  we  have  traced  the  prin- 
ciple of  extradition  of  fugitives  from  justice.  The  latter  is  found 
in  the  comity  of  nations,  and  in  the  necessity  of  maintaining  the 
cause  of  justice,  of  order,  of  law,  and  of  government.  The  former 
has  no  such  foundation.  If  by  the  words  "  persons  held  to  service 
or  labor"  are  meant,  as  some  suppose,  persons  held  by  contract,  we 
shall  look  in  vain  throughout  the  history  of  every  civilized  state, 
for  a  principle  so  much  at  war  with  human  liberty,  as  the  surren- 
der of  fugitive  debtors.  Some  modern  states  allow  to  citizens,  or 
subjects  of  other  states,  access  to  courts  of  justice,  to  enforce  obli- 
gations of  debt  by  the  remedies  given  in  similar  cases  to  their  own 
citizens.  None  ever  surrendered — and  none  ever  will  surrender,  a 
fugitive  debtor,  to  be  conveyed  to  the  state  where  the  obligation 
was  incurred. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  505 

Another  opinion  exists,  which  is  thus  expressed  by  the  late  and 
lamented  Justice  Story :  "  The  object  of  this  clause  was,  '  to  secure 
to  the  citizens  of  the  slave-holding  states  the  complete  right  and 
title  of  ownership  in  their  slaves  as  property  in  every  state  in  the 
Union,  into  which  they  might  escape  from  the  state  where  they 
were  held  in  servitude.' ':  If  this  opinion  be  adopted,  the  very 
shadow  of  analogy  between  the  two  constitutional  powers  will 
vanish.  For,  by  the  general  law  of  nations,  none  is  bound  to  re- 
cognize the  state  of  slavery  as  to  foreign  slaves,  found  within  its 
territorial  dominions,  when  it  is  in  opposition  to  its  own  policy  and 
institutions,  in  favor  of  the  subjects  of  other  nations,  where  slavery 
is  recognized.  There  is  not  now,  and  never  was,  any  such  comity 
of  nations,  as  dictated  compacts  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive 
slaves.  No  Christian  nation  would  ever  make  such  a  compact. 
Every  state  has  denied  an  obligation  to  surrender  persons  claimed 
to  be  slaves.  It  was  truly  said,  by  the  distinguished  judge  last 
mentioned,  that  "  if  the  Constitution  had  not  contained  the  clause 
now  under  consideration,  every  non-slaveholding  state  in  the  Union 
would  have  been  at  liberty  to  have  declared  free  all  runaway 
slaves  coming  within  its  limits,  and  to  have  given  them  entire  im- 
munity, and  protection  against  the  claims  of  their  masters."  There- 
fore the  clause  is  an  abridgment  of  state  sovereignty — it  conflicts 
with  the  principles  of  natural  and  civil  liberty,  and  contrasts,  at 
least,  strongly  with  the  rights  and  privileges  guaranteed  to  the 
citizens  of  all  the  states  by  the  Constitution.  It  is,  therefore,  to  be 
strictly  construed.  If  strictly  construed,  the  clause  spends  its 
whole  force,  in  an  inhibition  of  laws  and  regulations  calculated,  in 
one  state,  to  work  a  discharge  of  fugitives  held  to  labor  in  other 
states,  by  the  laws  thereof,  and  neither  needs,  nor  contemplates, 
legislation  by  Congress,  but  relies,  for  its  execution,  upon  the  judi- 
cial authorities  of  the  states  and  of  the  Union. 

This  argument  derives  much  force,  from  the  fact,  that  the 
Constitution  does  not,  among  its  express  powers,  authorize  Con- 
gress to  enact  laws  concerning  the  arrest  of  fugitives  from  labor. 
Such  a  power  is  omitted  from  the  long  catalogue  of  legislative 
powers.  "We  have  read,  with  profound  respect,  the  opinions  of 
this  Court,  delivered  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania,  in 
which  it  was  argued  that  Congress  might  exercise  the  power  mani- 
fested in  the  act  of  1793,  from  a  supposed  analogy  to  many  cases 
in  which  the  National  Legislature  necessarily  exercises  inferential 


506  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

legislative  authority,  to  carry  into  effect,  constitutional  provisions. 
But  this  reasoning  fails  to  satisfy  us,  because  it  seems  to  us  that  in 
the  first  place,  the  necessity  of  legislation,  under  this  claim  of  the 
Constitution,  is  violently  inferred,  and  then  another  violence  is  com- 
mitted by  inferring  an  implied  power. 

The  work  of  usurpation  once  begun,  derives  strength  from  pre- 
cedent, and  fearful  force  from  judicial  acquiescence.  Thus  it  has 
happened  in  regard  to  the  claim  under  consideration.  The  very- 
structure  of  the  provision  shows  that  it  was  designed  merely  to 
limit  and  restrict  the  legislative  power  of  the  states,  not  to  deprive 
them  of  all  power  to  legislate  concerning  fugitives  from  slavery. 
No  person  held  to  labor  by  the  laws  of  one  state,  and  escaping  into 
another,  shall  be  discharged  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regula- 
tion of  that  state.  This  language  plainly  implies  that  any  state 
may  pass  what  laws,  and  establish  what  regulations  it  may  deem 
expedient,  and  those  laws  will  be  valid  and  effectual,  save  only  in 
one  respect,  namely,  that  no  person  shall,  in  consequence  thereof, 
be  discharged  from  labor  or  service  due,  in  another  state,  by  the 
laws  thereof.  It  was  so  understood  throughout  the  Union.  Ac- 
cordingly, at  a  very  early  period,  every  state,  or  almost  every 
state,  enacted  laws  regulating  the  proceedings  on  the  claim  of  fugi- 
tives, in  harmony,  as  was  believed,  with  the  constitutional  provi- 
sions. But  after  a  lapse  of  fifty  years,  and  after  acquiescence 
during  that  period  by  nearly  all  the  states  in  this  system 
of  legislation,  it  was  decided  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania, 
that  the  restriction  of  state  legislative  power  was  an  absolute  inhi- 
bition of  its  exercise.  With  the  most  profound  deference,  we  sub- 
mit that  the  error  of  that  adjudication  need  not  be  exposed  by 
argument,  but  is  apparent,  and  rendered  palpable,  by  bringing 
the  Constitution  and  the  adjudication  into  simple  juxtaposition 
and  contrast. 

His  Honor,  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  the  case  last  mentioned,  gave 
an  analysis  of  the  constitutional  provision,  to  show,  that  legislation 
was  contemplated  to  carry  it  fully  into  effect,  and  to  prevent  its 
abuse.*  But  this  process  seems  to  lead,  inevitably,  to  the  opposite 
conclusion.  The  learned  judge  assumed,  that  the  delivery  of  the 
fugitive  slave  to  the  claimant,  was  the  principal  object  and  de- 
sign of  the  provision,  and  all  else  that  it  contained  was  merely 
incidental.  On  the  contrary,  the  most  cursory  reading  of  the  pro- 

*  16  Peters,  640. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  507 

vision  would  discover  that  the  restrictions  upon  the  legislative 
power  of  the  states,  or  to  speak  still  more  accurately,  the  restraint 
upon  the  courts  of  justice,  in  cases  and  proceedings,  concerning 
the  claims  of  fugitives  from  labor,  was  the  principal  object  and 
design,  and  that  the  delivery  of  the  fugitive  was  purely  an  inci- 
dent or  consequence.  The  provision  refers  neither  to  Congress, 
nor  to  state  legislatures,  directs  no  action  by  them,  nor  designates 
any  possible  occasion  for  their  action.  Looking  over,  and  beyond 
them,  to  the  courts  of  justice,  the  Constitution  brings  before  us 
a  case,  where  a  person,  who  has  been  proved  to  be  held  to  labor, 
in  one  state,  is  claimed  in  another,  and  pleads  that  the  state,  in 
which  the  trial  is  held,  has  made  some  law,  or  established  some 
regulation,  in  consequence  of  which,  he  is  discharged  from  his 
obligation  in  the  state  from  whence  he  escaped.  In  such  a  case 
the  Constitution  commands  the  court  to  disallow  that  plea,  and  to 
disregard  that  statute  and  regulation  so  completely,  that  the  fugi- 
tive may,  by  process  of  execution,  or  otherwise,  be  delivered  to  the 
claimant.  Surely  all  this  would  be  a  simple  proceeding.  If  the 
Constitution  has  given  no  details,  it  is  because  no  details  for  such 
a  proceeding  were  necessary.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution 
knew  that  there  could  not  be  such  proceedings, 'unless  there  were 
a  court,  a  claimant,  a  defender,  a  plea,  proof,  judgment  and  exe- 
cution ;  and  that  all  these  would  be  essential,  in  the  administration 
of  justice,  and  would  be  found  existing  in  the  administration  of 
justice,  in  every  state  which  should  come  into  the  confederacy. 

The  reasoning  which  has  been  pursued  has  brought  us,  at  length, 
upon  the  ground  on  which  this  court  has  taken  a  firm  position. 
The  court  said  in  the  opinion  delivered  by  Mr.  Justice  Story,  so 
often  cited,  in  page  613 : — 

"  We  have  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  holding,  that  under  and  in  virtue  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  owner  of  a  slave,  is  clothed  with  entire  authority,  in  every  state  in  the 
Union  to  seize  and  recapture  his  slave,  whenever  he  can  do  it  without  any  breach  of 
the  peace,  or  any  illegal  violence.  In  this  sense,  and  to  this  extent,  this  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  may  be  properly  said  to  execute  itself ,  and  to  require  no  aid  from  legisla- 
tion, state  or  national" 

If  then  the  Constitution,  proprio  vigore  executes  itself,  in  cases 
of  claim,  without  legal  process ;  and  if  in  cases  of  legal  process, 
the  Constitution,  being  the  paramount  law  of  the  land,  and,  there- 
fore, conclusively  binding  upon  all  courts,  state  and  national,  can 
execute  itself  through  those  courts,  without  legislation,  and  in 
despite  of  such  legislation,  the  law  of  1T93  is  as  void  as  any  legisla- 
tion by  the  several  states  would  be. 


508  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

Our  adversaries,  however,  seek  to  escape  from  this  dilemma,  by 
maintaining  that  legislative  power  is  necessary,  to  secure  the  de- 
livery of  the  fugitive  by  legal  process.  Their  case  is  stated  by 
Judge  Story,  as  follows  : — (p.  613.) 

"  But  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  doea  not  stop  here.  Many  cases  must  arise,  in 
which,  if  the  remedy  of  the  owner  were  confined  to  the  mere  right  of  seizure  and  re- 
caption, he  would  be  utterly  without  any  adequate  redress.  He  may  not  be  able  to 
lay  hands  upon  the  slave.  He  may  not  be  able  to  enforce  his  rights  against  persons 
who  either  secrete  or  conceal.  He  may  be  restricted  by  local  legislation,  as  to  the 
modes  of  proof  as  to  his  ownership — as  to  the  courts  in  which  he  shall  sue — and  as  to 
the  actions  which  he  shall  bring.  Nay,  the  local  legislation  may  be  utterly  inadequate 
to  furnish  the  appropriate  redress,  by  authorizing  no  process  in  rem,  or  no  specific  mode 
of  re-possessing  the  slave ;  or  the  state  legislation  may  be  entirely  silent  ou  the  whole 
subject ;  or  euch  as  to  deny  jurisdiction  over  cases  which  its  own  policy  or  institutions 
prohibit  or  discountenance." 

We  would  not  be  irreverent,  but  we  must  submit  that  this  rea- 
soning is  fallacious.  What  right  does  the  Constitution  give  to  any 
party,  as  an  owner  of  a  slave  as  property  ?  Ko  such  character, 
and  no  such  property  are  named,  or  described,  or  recognized  in 
this  Constitution.  In  a  case  of  latent  ambiguity,  we  may  resort  to 
extraneous  helps  to  construe  contracts,  compacts,  and  even  consti- 
tutions. Volumes  have  been  written  to  prove  that  slavery,  the 
relations  of  master  and  slave,  and  of  owner  and  slave,  existed  in 
the  country  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  and  that,  there- 
fore, this  constitutional  provision  is  to  be  deemed  and  taken  as  a 
recognition  of  slavery,  of  those  well  known  relations,  and  of  those 
anomalous  incidents.  The  more  clear  the  facts  thus  presented, 
the  more  conclusively  are  we  entitled  to  deny  the  conclusion  in- 
sisted upon.  For,  words  are  used  in  making  laws  and  constitu- 
tions, to  mean  what  they  express,  not  what  they  do  not  express. 
The  framers  of  the  Constitution,  who  knew  all  these  facts,  instead 
of  employing  language  well  known  and  commonly  used,  to  de- 
scribe slavery,  slaves,  and  slave-holders,  masters  and  slaves,  goods 
and  chattels,  and  owners  and  ownership,  studiously  and  carefully 
excluded  them  all.  Instead  of  any  such  terms  as  would  imply  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  law  of  slavery,  and  its  incidents,  they  de- 
scribed those  who  were  the  subjects  of  the  provision  in  question, 
not  as  chattels  or  property,  of  any  kind,  but  as  persons  and  as  men, 
and  not  as  persons  who  were  slaves,  but  as  persons  who  were  held 
to  labor  by  lawful  obligations.  Those  who  were  described  as 
claimants,  were  not  slave-holders,  or  owners,  or  even  masters,  but 
they,  like  the  subjects  of  their  claims,  were  persons,  they  were 
pei-sons  who  had  a  lawful  title  to  the  services  of  those  whom  they 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  509 

pursued.     And  the  Constitution  in  every  part  and  portion  of  it, 
fastidiously  rejects  all  recognition  of  slaves  and  slavery. 

We  ask  then,  in  the  words  of  Judge  Story,  how  are  we  to  in- 
terpret the  language  of  the  clause?     We  borrow  from  him  the  re- 
ply.    :'  The  true  answer  is,  in  such  a  manner  as  consistently  with 
the  words,  shall  fully  and  completely  effect  the  whole  objects  of 
it,"     Less  than  this  would  render  the  protection  given  by  the  pro- 
vision, "  shadowy  and  unsubstantial."    More  would  convert  it  in- 
to an  engine  of  oppression  and  slavery.     And  now,  with  what 
truth  can  it  be  said,  as  this  court  has  said  by  that  opinion,  that 
the  provision  contains  a  positive  and  unqualified  recognition  of 
property  of  the  owner  in  the  slave  ?     Mr.  Madison,  and  all  others, 
bear  testimony,  that  the  convention,  sagaciously,  intentionally, 
and  solemnly,  refused  to  recognize  slavery,  or  the  right  of  proper- 
ty in  persons,  and  employed  the  phraseology  so  often  quoted,  for 
the  very  purpose  of  excluding  any  construction  in  favor  of  slave- 
ry.    How  is  it,  then,  that  after  a  lapse  of  some  sixty  years,  it  is 
now  held  that  the  object  of  the  clause  was,  "  to  secure  to  the  citi- 
zens of  the  slave-holding  states  the  complete  right  and  title  of 
ownership  in  their  slaves,  as  property."     I  humbly  ask  this  court 
to  reconsider  the  principles  thus  promulgated,  to  disclaim  a  con- 
struction that  makes  the  Constitution  recognize  and  sanction  sla- 
very, and  to  restore  it  to  its  simplicity  as  a  compact,  that  one 
state  shall  not  discharge,  by  legislation,  persons  escaping  from  an- 
other state  in  which  they  are  held  to  labor.     It  is  vain,  or  soon 
will  be,  for  even  this  court  to  require  us  to  read  the  word  "  slave" 
for  "  person  held  to  labor  ;"  the  word  "property"  for  "  obligation 
by  law  ;"  and  the  words  "  slave-holder"  and  "  owner,"  for  "  claim- 
ant."    Let  the  ancient  reading  prevail,  and  all  the  difficulties 
which  the  court  have  heretofore  found  Avill  immediately  disap- 
pear.    Then,  we  shall  no  longer  be  told,  as  in  the  case  of  Prigg 
vs.  Pennsylvania,  that  "  the  owner  would  be  utterly  without  any 
adequate  redress,  if  his  remedy  were  confined  to  mere  seizure  and 
recaption."     For  nothing  but  that  right  is  given  to  the  "  claimant" 
by  the  Constitution,  except  a  declaration  that  it  shall  not  be  im- 
paired by  state  legislation.     Then  we  shall  not  be  told  that  "  the 
owner  may  not  be  able  to  lay  his  hand  upon  his  slave  as  his  pro- 
perty"    For  then  there  will  be  no  slave  and  no  property  to  lay 
hand  upon.     There  will  be  a  person  claimed  and  a  claimant,  as 
there  is  a  debtor  and  a  or  editor,  a  plaintiff  and  a  defendant,  in 

VOL.  1—33. 


510  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

every  civil  cause.  Then  we  shall  not  be  told  that  "  the  owner 
may  not  be  able  to  enforce  his  rights  against  persons  who  either 
secrete,  or  conceal,  or  withhold  the  slave ;"  for  then,  there  will  be 
no  right  in  favor  of  an  owner,  as  such,  to  be  enforced  against  any 
person  who  shall  secrete,  or  conceal,  or  withhold  a  slave.  But 
there  will  remain  a  right  of  the  obligee,  to  a  delivery  of  his  debtor. 
If  he  ask  more  than  this,  he  will  be  answered :  "  We  leave  you 
to  your  common  law  rights,  your  statutory  rights,  your  rights  by 
the  civil  law,  whatever  they  may  be.  Take  your  debtor.  This 
is  all  the  Constitution  gives.  Take  him,  this  is  all  the  Constitution 
yields  to  one  whose  debt  is  founded  upon  the  accident  of  birth,  or 
of  color,  and  is  created  by  law,  without  the  consent  of  the  debtor, 
and  can  be  discharged  only  by  servitude  for*  life,  servitude  not 
merely  for  life,  but  reaching  over  all  generations." 

Then  we  shall  not  be  told  that  "  the  owner  may  be  restricted  by 
local  legislation  as  to  the  mode  or  proofs  of  his  cncnership"  for 
then  there  will  be  a  ready  answer :  "  The  Constitution  does  not 
inhibit  local  legislation,  or  regulation  concerning  the  mode  of 
proof  of  ownership  or  claim,  unless  in  consequence  of  such  legis- 
lation the  party  claimed  would  be  discharged,  and  if  legislation 
should  work  such  a  consequence  it  would  be  void."  Then  we 
shall  not  be  told  that  "  the  claimant  might  be  restricted  as  to  the 
courts  in  which  he  should  sue,  and  the  actions  which  he  should 
bring."  For  he  would  have  the  same  remedies  in  the  same  courts, 
and  the  same  forms  of  action,  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  the  state 
in  which  his  suit  should  be  brought,  unless  the  state  authorities 
should  abridge  his  rights  in  that  respect,  so  as  to  effect  a  discharge 
of  the  fugitive ;  and  then  those  regulations  would  be  void.  Then 
we  shall  not  be  told  "  that  the  state  legislatures  might  not  author- 
ize an  execution  in  rem  to  deliver  a  man — for  then  the  man,  no 
longer  a  thing,  would  be  restored  to  his  constitutional  dignity  as 
a  person  or  a  man.71  Then  we  should  no  longer  be  told,  that  "  the 
state  legislatures  might  leave  the  owner  to  the  mere  exercise  of 
his  right  to  repossess  his  slave  without  damages  against  the  party 
that  might  retain  or  withhold  him."  For  that  right  is  all  the 
Constitution  has  given,  and  he  is  without  any  claim  for  damages 
in  any  case ;  or  if  he  should  have  a  claim  for  damages,  it  would 
arise  by  operation  of  the  common  law,  or  of  the  civil  law,  or  of 
whichever  might  be  of  force  in  any  state,  and  any  local  statute 
law  or  regulation  which  should  deprive  the  plaintiff  of  it,  would 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  511 

be  absolutely  void,  because  it  would  discharge  the  party  claimed 
from  his  lawful  obligations. 

SECONDLY.  Even  though  the  provision,  concerning  the  surrender 
of  fugitives  from  labor,  be  ineffectual,  and  though  Congress  have 
the  power  to  give  it  effect  ~by  legislation,  the  act  of  1793  is  void,  be- 
cause it  transcends  the  legislative  power  of  Congress. 

The  power  is  co-extensive  with  the  legitimate  scope  and  design 
of  the  constitutional  provision.     Neither  the  legislature,  nor  the 
courts,  can  enlarge  or  alter  it.     By  a  reference  to  the  clause,  it 
will  be  seen,  that  under  even  the  construction  claimed  by  our 
adversary,  two  objects  are  assigned — two  ends  are  to  be  effected — 
first,  to  avoid  any  legislation  or  regulation  by  the  states,  in  con- 
sequence of  which,  a  fugitive  from  labor  might  be  discharged 
therefrom  ;  secondly,  to  provide  that  such  a  fugitive  should,  upon 
claim,  be  delivered  to  the  party  to  whom  his  services  should  be 
due.     The  act  of  1793,  implies  a  confession  by  Congress,  that  no 
legislation  as  to  the  first  object  was  necessary :  for  it  contains  none. 
The  act  purports  to  attain  the  second  object  by  several  provisions. 
The  third  section  authorizes  the  person  to  whom  labor  or  service 
may  be  due,  to  seize  or  arrest  the  fugitive,  and  take  him  or  her 
before  the  judge  of  any  District  or  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  vicinage,  and  upon  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
judge  or  magistrate,  either  by  oral  evidence  or  affidavit,  that  the 
person  so  seized  or  arrested,  doth,  under  the  laws  of  the  state  from 
which  he  fled,  owe  service  or  labor  to  the  person  claiming  him,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  judge  or  magistrate,  to  give  a  certificate 
thereof  to  the  claimant,  his  agent,  or  attorney,  which  shall  be  a 
sufficient  warrant  for  removing  the  fugitive  to  the  state  from 
which  he  fled.     The  fourth  section  provides  a  penalty  against  any 
person  who  shall  knowingly  and  willingly  obstruct  the  claimant  in 
seizing  or  arresting  the  fugitive,  or  who  shall  rescue  him,  and  also 
denounces  a  penalty  upon  any  person  who  shall  harbor  or  conceal 
any  person  after  notice  that  he  is  such  fugitive  as  aforesaid,  and 
also  saves  to  the  claimant  his  right  of  action  for  any  such  injuries. 
If  this  statute  be  laid  by  the  side  of  the  constitutional  provision, 
it  will  appear  very  manifest  that  the  statute  exceeds  the  constitu- 
tional power  of  Congress.     First  in  this :  That  it  authorizes,  and 
for  aught  that  appears,  unnecessarily  authorizes,  a  party  to  be  his 
own  bailiff,  and  to  seize  his  debtor  by  force  in  any  state  without 
process,  without  warrant  issued  upon  probable  cause,  and  in  viola- 


512  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

tion  of  the  4th  article  of  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.     That  article  declares  as  follows  : — 

"  The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects, 
against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated ;  and  no  warrants  shall 
issue,  but  on  probable  cause  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing 
the  place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized." 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  made  BY  THE  PEOPLE 
of  the  United  States,  in  the  NAME  of  the  PEOPLE,  and,  however 
contrary  to  the  fact,  it  must  be  deemed  to  have  been  made  with 
the  implied  consent  of  the  whole  people,  as  well  slaves  as  freemen. 
This  is  so  manifestly  a  true  theory,  that  I  need  not  fortify  it  by 
reference  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  A  slave,  being  a 
person,  is  one  of  the  people.  It  is  only  as  one  of  the  people,  that 
he  is  held  to  labor  by  law,  and  however  he  may  be  denied  partici- 
pation in  the  contract  of  labor  or  in  the  conduct  of  the  govern- 
ment to  which  he  is  subjected,  he  is  still  a  member  of  the  great 
corporation  aggregate  for  whom  the  Constitution  was  made,  and  is 
maintained.  In  his  lowest  estate — in  his  most  abject  servitude,  he 
has  some  legal  rights.  He  may  not  be  slain,  or  even  assailed, 
without  a  cause,  and  though  he  may  be  forbidden  to  claim  a 
remedy,  society  claims  and  enforces  it  for  him.  Let  it  be  marked 
that  this  fourth  article  does  not  limit  the  rights  which  it  guaran- 
tees to  citizens  only  ;  but  extends  them  to  the  people,  and  of  course 
to  every  one  of  the  people.  If  it  be  maintained  that  a  slave  is  not 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  article,  in  the  state  where  he  is 
bound  to  labor,  we  answer  that  "  he  becomes  ex  vi  termini  one  of 
the  people  of  any  other  state  which  he  enters,  and  then  acquires  a 
right  to  the  protection  of  this  article,  modified  only  by  the  pro- 
vision which  forbids  his  discharge  in  consequence  of  the  laws  of 
that  state." 

Every  doubt  of  the  right  of  the  alleged  fugitive  slave,  to  the 
protection  of  this  4th  article,  will  be  removed,  by  collating  it  with 
the  3d  clause  of  the  2d  section  of  the  4th  article  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. Those  who  are  described  in  both,  are  described  as  persons 
and  not  as  slaves. 

The  law  of  1793  invades  the  rights  of  personal  liberty  secured 
by  the  5th  article  of  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  which 
declares  that  "no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property,  without  due  process  of  law."  Due  process  of  law,  is  a 
writ  or  warrant  issued  by  a  magistrate,  upon  probable  cause,  sup- 
ported by  oath  or  affirmation,  describing  the  person  to  be  seized. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  513 

Again.  The  law  of  1793  invades  the  7th  article  of  the  amend- 
ments. The  right  of  recaption  has  been  declared  by  this  court  to 
be  a  common  law  right,  and  clearly  it  is  not  one  to  be  tried  in  a 
court  of  Equity,  or  of  Admiralty.  It  is,  therefore,  a  right  to  be 
tried  by  a  court  proceeding,  according  to  the  course  of  the  com- 
mon law,  and  yet  the  law  of  1793,  denies  to  the  person  arrested, 
the  privilege  of  trial  by  jury. 

Again.  The  act  of  1793  is  unconstitutional,  and  void,  because 
it  authorizes  not  merely  an  unreasonable  seizure  of  a  party,  with- 
out due  process  of  law,  but  directs  that  a  judgment  of  disfranchise- 
ment  and  perpetual  labor,  may  be  rendered  against  him  in  his 
absence,  under  duress  l)y  the  plaintiff,  upon  ex-parte  evidence,  with- 
out giving  him  any  opportunity  to  be  heard,  before  judgment,  or 
to  review  the  proceedings  afterwards,  and  throughout  the  contem- 
plated proceeding,  denies  him  the  privilege  of  bail.  And  this  is 
in  palpable  violation  of  the  eighth  article  of  the  amendment, 
which  declares,  "  That  excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor 
excessive  fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  in- 
flicted." Again,  the  fourth  section  of  the  act  is  unconstitutional, 
because  it  subjects  the  party  harboring  or  concealing  a  fugitive 
from  labor,  to  punishment.  While'  the  constitutional  provision 
does  not  at  all  inhibit  a  citizen  from  yielding  such  hospitality  and 
entertainment,  he  has  a  natural  right  to  exercise  it  by  the  consti- 
tution of  every  society.  There  is  a  luxury  in  affording  "succor, 
help,  and  comfort"  to  the  needy  and  oppressed,  and  we  are  com- 
manded to  do  so  by  divine  laws,  paramount  to  all  human  authority. 

If  it  be  answered  that  Congress  has  deemed  such  a  provision 
necessary,  to  give  effect  to  the  Constitution,  we  reply  : — 

First.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution,  with  a  full  view  of  all 
the  evils  to  be  prevented,  confined  the  remedy  to  an  inhibition 
of  certain  local  legislation,  and  to  the  extradition  of  fugitives 
when  claimed. 

Secondly.  Congress  has  no  power  to  interdict  any  duty  enjoined 
by  God  on  Mount  Sinai,  or  inculcated  by  his  Son,  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives. 

In  truth,  an  examination  of  the  statute,  and  a  comparison  of 
its  provisions  with  the  cotemporaneous  legislation  of  the  slave- 
holding  states,  shows  that  its  details  were  not  original,  and  were 
not  new,  but  were  borrowed  from  statutes  of  those  states,  invented 
to  prevent  the  escape  of  slaves.  When  the  "  Amendments,"  which 


514  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

have  been  cited,  were  so  strenuously  insisted  upon  by  the  state  of 
New  York,  as  a  condition  of  accepting  the  Constitution,  the  alarms 
and  fears,  out  of  which  they  arose,  were  thought  by  many,  ground- 
less, and  absurd.  It  is  a  melancholy  reflection  that  they  have 
proved  inoperative.  Still  further  and  stronger  guaranties  of  per- 
sonal rights  will  be  necessary,  if  the  decision  here  be  adverse  to 
the  defendant. 

Finally.  The  act  of  1793  is  unconstitutional,  because,  by  im- 
plication and  certain  effect,  it  recognizes  slavery  as  a  lawful  insti- 
tution, lawfully  creating  an  obligation  to  labor.  All  slavery  is  an 
open  violation  of  the  personal  rights  guarantied  to  the  people  by 
the  Constitution.  However  true  it  may  be,  that  when  Congress 
finds  the  institution  existing  in  any  state,  they  have  no  power  to 
disturb  it  there ;  it  is  clear  that  they  have  no  right  to  extend  it 
into  other  states,  or  compel  such  states  to  recognize  its  peculiar 
code.  Such  a  power  is  not  expressly  conferred  by  the  section 
which  has  been  considered,  nor  is  it  implied  by  any  necessary  or 
reasonable  construction.  It  is  manifestly  excluded  from  that  por- 
tion of  the  instrument,  absolutely  interdicted  by  others  which  have 
been  recited,  and  is  at  war  with  the  spirit  of  the  whole  Constitu- 
tion. We  need  not  refer  again,  minutely,  to  its  provisions  to  sup- 
port this  argument.  Our  senses  tell  us,  our  happiness  assures  us, 
our  pride  proclaims,  the  graves  and  glory  of  our  ancestors,  every 
day  and  every  hour  remind  us  that  we  are  a  FREE  People ;  and 
that  the  Constitution  is  a  legacy  of  liberty,  and  so  far  as  liberty 
and  slavery  depend  on  that  great  charter,  all  men  are  free  and 
equal.  If  all  this  be  not  evidence  enough,  we  can  read  the  same 
truth  in  the  severe  derision  we  justly  excite  throughout  the  world, 
and  the  humiliation  we  cannot  conceal,  when  we  attempt  to  justify 
the  toleration  of  slavery. 

For  myself,  an  humble  advocate  in  a  great  cause,  I  cannot  hope, 
I  dare  not  hope,  I  do  not  expect,  that  principles  which  seem  to  me 
so  reasonable,  so  just  and  truthful,  can  all  at  once  gain  immediate 
establishment  in  this  tribunal,  against  the  force  of  many  prece- 
dents and  the  weight  of  many  honored  names.  But  I  do  humbly 
hope  that  past  adjudications,  by  which  the  Constitution  was  un- 
necessarily declared  to  recognize,  sanction,  and  guaranty  slavery, 
may  be  reconsidered.  I  appeal  to  the  court  to  restore  to  that  re- 
vered instrument,  its  simplicity,  its  truthfulness,  its  harmony  with 
the  Declaration  of  Independence — its  studied  denial  of  a  right  of 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  515 

property  in  man,  and  its  jealous  regard  for  the  security  of  the 
people.  I  humbly  supplicate,  that  slavery,  with  its  odious  form 
and  revolting  features,  and  its  dreadful  pretensions  for  the  present 
and  for  the  future,  may  not  receive  in  this  great  tribunal, 
now,  sanction  and  countenance,  denied  to  it  by  a  convention  of 
the  American  states  more  than  half  a  century  ago.  Let  the  spirit 
which  prevailed  in  that  august  assembly,  only  find  utterance  here, 
and  the  time  will  come  somewhat  more  speedily,  when  throughout 
this  great  empire,  erected  on  the  foundation  of  the  rights  of  man, 
no  court  of  justice  will  be  required  to  enforce  INVOLUNTARY  obli- 
gations of  LABOR,  and  uphold  the  indefensible  law  of  PHYSICAL 
FORCE. 


516  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 


INTENTION.* 

MAY   IT  PLEASE  THE   COURT,  GENTLEMEN   OF  THE   JURY, 

The  learned  counsel  who  opened  this  case  to  you  on  the  part  of 
the  defendants,  began  his  argument  by  endeavoring  to  excite  in 
your  mind  a  prejudice  against  the  system  of  the  patent  laws  of 
your  country,  and  he  fortified  his  argument  by  calling  the  system 
one  of  monopoly.  He  pointed  out  no  abuses  which  have  ever 
existed  in  this  country,  but  he  spoke  of  abuses  which  occurred  in 
England.  It  is  true  that  at  one  time,  in  England,  the  system  of 
monopolies  had  become  oppressive  and  odious.  This  arose  from 
no  defect  in  the  system,  but  was  produced  by  the  government 
itself.  There  was  a  time  when  all  legislative  and  executive  powers 
were  united  in  a  king.  He  abused  the  principle  on  which  the 
system  of  the  patent  laws  is  founded,  and  he  carried  these  abuses 
to  the  extent  defined  by  the  counsel.  A  Queen  of  England  inter- 
dicted the  manufacture  of  playing-cards,  in  order  that  she  might 
grant  the  monopoly  to  a  favorite,  assigning  as  a  reason,  that  her 
other  subjects  might  be  better  employed.  The  patent  for  the 
colony  of  New  York  was  granted  by  the  king  to  his  brother,  on 
this  principle.  But  the  idea  on  which  the  system  of  our  patent 
laws  is  founded,  is,  by  those  abuses  of  it,  only  proved  to  be  the 
more  true,  wise  and  just.  In  the  time  of  James  L,  when  the 
legislature  recovered  its  power,  it  declared  the  whole  system  of 
monopoly  and  its'  abuses  to  be  contrary  to  the  interests  of  society. 
Then  the  common  law  took  up  this  principle,  and  established  it 
in  a  system  of  patent  laws,  sound,  wise  and  beneficent,  and  within 
the  restraints  then  placed  around  it,  it  has  continued  until  this  day, 
under  the  administration  of  it  by  learned  courts,  until  that  nation 
which  leads  the  march  of  the  world  in  wealth,  prosperity,  and 
military  power  and  renown,  owes  its  position  to  nothing  more 
than  to  this  condemned  principle. 

*  Argument  on  Invention — Many  vs.  Treadwell — Albany,  Oct.  17, 1848. 


INVENTION.  517 

What  is  that  principle  ?  Simply  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  be  a  praise  unto  them  that  do  well,  and  a  terror  to 
evil  doers.  Why  is  it  important  that  the  government  should  be  a 
praise  unto  them  that  do  well  ?  It  is  not  because  by  rewarding 
those  that  do  well  it  promotes  their  welfare,  but  because  it  thereby 
exercises  a  protecting  power  over  all  the  interests  of  society.  And 
what  is  this,  for  which  the  government  praises  those  that  do  well  ? 
It  is  the  principle  of  invention.  And  what  is  that  ?  There  are 
two  great  principles  of  activity,  in  regard  to  the  world.  One  is 
creation,  the  other  is  invention.  Creation  is  the  peculiar  attribute 
of  Him  who  made  all  worlds,  all  that  is  on  the  earth,  in  the  earth, 
and  in  the  waters  under  the  earth,  for  the  greatness  and  the  wel- 
fare and  the  happiness  of  our  race.  He  created  nothing  that  is 
not  adapted,  fit,  and  useful  in  some  way  to  promote  our  health, 
welfare,  prosperity  and  happiness.  He  made  it  all,  in  the  coun- 
sels of  his  own  will.  He  spoke  it  into  existence  by  a  word,  but 
he  concealed  it  from  his  creatures,  and  made  it  their  greatest  glory 
to  find  out  the  purposes,  principles,  and  adaptations  of  the  things 
by  which  he  surrounded  them.  Our  duty  consists  in  finding  them 
out,  and  invention  is  nothing  more  than  finding  out  what  will  pro- 
mote the  progress  of  society,  through  all  time.  He  has  hidden 
and  concealed  nothing  so  deeply  that  wTe  cannot  find  out,  as  fast 
as  is  best  for  our  welfare  and  consistent  with  his  Providence,  the 
uses  and  purposes  of  every  thing.  Invention,  then,  is  worthy  of 
the  fostering  care  of  every  government.  What  would  society  be 
now,  but  for  the  exercise  of  invention  in  times  past?  Where 
lies  our  hope  of  progress  in  society,  but  in  the  exercise  of  inven- 
tion for  the  future  ?  Hope  is,  in  this  respect,  the  spring  of  youth 
to  mankind  and  to  nations.  And  in  the  exercise  of  invention,  the 
world  is  renewing  itself,  and  becoming  wiser  and  better,  as  it  ap- 
proaches those  latter  days,  when  our  species  will  have  attained  a 
comparative  degree  of  perfection  and  exaltation: 

Wherein  consisted  the  advantage  of  the  Spaniard  over  the 
Peruvian  and  the  Mexican,  when  he  subverted  the  empires  of 
America?  It  was  in  this,  that  the  invader  had  invented  the 
power  which  resides  in  the  combination  of  sulphur,  saltpetre  and 
charcoal.  Wherein  our  superiority  over  the  enemy,  wrhom  we 
have  recently  defeated  in  the  centre  of  this  continent,  but  that  we 
have  rewarded  invention  ?  Look,  too,  at  the  dignity  of  this  prin- 
ciple of  invention.  It  stands  in  contrast  with  the  power  of  the 


518  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

Almighty.  He  creates  instantly ;  man  finds  out  slowly,  progres- 
sively, laboriously.  "When  you  reflect,  you  will  see  that  there  is 
danger  of  misapprehension.  You  have  been  imagining  that 
somebody  made,  or  created,  a  railroad  wheel.  But  no  human 
being  creates.  God  alone  creates.  It  is  our  province,  worthy  of 
the  patronage  of  government,  and  the  highest  exercise  of  human 
power,  to  follow  the  clues  which  lead  us  to  his  designs,  with  re- 
gard to  matter,  for  our  happiness  and  welfare.  And  what  is  there 
wrong  in  this  system  ?  Society  says  to  all  alike,  that  if  they  will 
devote  talent  to  the  discovery  of  any  thing  which  will  contribute 
to  the  welfare  of  society,  they  shall  have  the  first  enjoyment  of 
it  for  fourteen  years,  on  condition  that  they  will  then  publish  it 
for  the  benefit  of  the  world  at  large,  for  this  and  future  genera- 
tions. If,  then,  there  is  an  honest  thought  in  your  hearts,  do  not 
your  cheeks  blush  writh  shame,  not  because  your  country  has  con- 
ferred this  benefit,  here  and  there,  on  a  struggling  inventor,  but 
because  you  are  filled  with  virtuous  indignation,  that  Fulton  sleeps 
in  his  grave,  while  his  family  are  mendicants,  and  while  the  pro- 
duction he  gave  to  the  world  has  become  the  engine  of  your  com- 
merce, the  great  uniting  power  that  binds  your  confederacy  to- 
gether, and  is  revolutionizing  the  East,  bringing  Africa  and  Asia 
into  the  great  fold  of  the  family  of  civilized  man  ?  It  is  a  burn- 
ing reproach,  that  he  who  made  the  lightning  your  messenger, 
and  bids  it  carry  for  you  messages  of  love,  and  grief,  and  joy,  and 
triumph,  and  trouble,  is  standing  here  this  day,  in  this  court,  a 
suppliant  to  the  lawrs  of  the  land,  to  protect  him  for  fourteen  years 
in  the  enjoyment  of  that  instrument,  the  effects  of  which,  to  bene- 
fit mankind,  cannot  be  bounded  by  time,  and  will  be  felt  when 
time  shall  have  ceased  to  exist. 

"Where,  then,  is  the  monopoly  ?  In  what  ?  "Why,  it  is  said,  that 
although  the  patentee  may  sell  for  fourteen  years,  still  he  may  re- 
fuse to  sell ;  and  he  is  compared  to  the  dog  in  the  manger.  How 
can  a  man  have  a  right  to  sell,  unless  he  has  a  right  to  name  his 
price  ?  Still  it  is  said,  no  other  man  may  compete  with  him.  But 
I  can  realize  nothing  from  a  patent,  unless  I  sell,  and  the  more  I 
sell,  the  greater  my  profits.  "Where  is  the  unreasonableness  of 
this  ?  No  invention  was  ever  brought  to  perfection,  without  the 
expenditure  of  money  and  labor.  Truscott  &  Dougherty,  the  in- 
ventors of  this  wheel,  were  poor,  laboring  men.  The  first  thing 
they  did,  was  to  bring  in  a  third  person,  to  furnish  the  small 


INVENTION.  519 

amount  of  money,  that  was  necessary  to  convert  an  old  spoke- 
wheel  pattern  into  this  wheel.  Woodworth's  planing  machine 
costs  now  some  three  or  four  hundred  dollars,  yet  Woodworth  was 
obliged,  before  he  could  begin  to  build  his  machine,  to  sell  the 
half  of  his  invention  to  the  man  who  furnished  the  capital. 

The  human  race  is  yet  enthralled  in  ignorance,  and  to  a  great 
degree  in  poverty,  and  suffering.  Society  is  to  be  disenthralled 
by  finding  out  the  properties  which  God  has  conferred  on  matter. 

If  the  merit  of  invention  is  so  great,  it  must  be  a  pleasing  grati- 
fication to  him  who  organized  the  system  on  which  human  society 
is  established,  when  he  sees  one  of  his  creatures  so  employed.  And 
there  must  have  been  a  beneficent  smile  from  on  high,  lighting  up 
a  halo  around  the  head  of  Fulton,  when  he  invented  a  steamboat. 
No  less  beneficent  must  have  been  the  smile  when  these  poor  and 
humble  citizens  produced  an  invention  which  would  save  the  loss 
of  human  life  on  railroads.  You  are  the  interpreters  of  the  Omni- 
scient Eye  in  regard  to  the  aptitude  of  iron  for  the  purpose  which 
we  have  been  discussing.  You  must  perform  your  duty  under  the 
belief  that  He  sees  your  hearts,  and  tries  your  reins,  and  that  what- 
ever judgment  is  meted  by  you,  shall  be  meted  to  you  again.  For 
there  is  an  all-seeing  Eye,  that  renders  to  us  even  in  this  life,  the 
reward  we  merit  for  doing  justly. 

But  the  atrocious  assault  that  has  been  made  on  the  policy  of 
your  country  has  a  mitigation  pleaded  for  it.  It  is  said  that  the 
true  inventors,  Truscott,  Wolf  and  Dougherty,  might  be  entitled 
to  recover,  but  that  this  action  is  brought  by  a  speculator,  who 
has  no  business  but  to  prevent  people  from  making  railroad  wheels. 
This  apology  is  as  atrocious  as  the  other  offence.  The  patentees 
made  these  wheels  for  four  years,  struggling  all  the  while  against 
the  power  and  wealth  of  railroad  companies,  and  the  capital  of 
such  men  as  Baldwin  &  Tiers.  They  put  in  use  a  thousand  of 
them.  Then  Bush  &  Lobdell,  of  Wilmington,  commenced  making 
wheels  in  defiance  of  this  patent,  and  on  its  principle,  because  the 
patentees  had  no  pecuniary  ability  to  defend  themselves.  Then, 
Eddy  of  Waterford,  commenced  making  the  Wolf  wheel ;  and 
then  the  Sizers  and  Kinsley  covered  the  whole  of  New  England 
with  them.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  they  discontinued  the 
manufacture.  All  wheels  that  can  be  used  on  railroads,  and  are 
not  spoke  wheels,  are  Wolf  wheels.  There  is  not  a  double  plate 
car  wheel,  or  a  hollow  car  wheel  in  America,  that  is  not  made 


520  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

under  license  from  this  plaintiff,  or  is  not  the  subject  of  prosecu- 
tion existing,  or  to  exist. 

The  learned  counsel  for  the  defendants  says,  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  plaintiff  ever  paid  any  thing  for  his  patent,  and  that 
his  instrument  of  purchase  recites  the  consideration  of  six  thousand 
dollars,  after  nine  years  of  the  patent  had  gone  by.  But  since 
you  are  asked  to  believe  suspicions  on  the  one  side,  I  appeal  to 
you  to  believe  me  when  I  say  to  you,  that  I  saw  and  know,  that 
that  whole  sum  was  paid,  and  paid  absolutely  and  in  good  faith. 
Yet  here  stand  the  defendants,  asking  you  to  defraud  this  man. 
He  has  stepped  forward  and  rewarded  the  inventors,  and  stands 
in  their  place.  Let  the  defendants  show  that  they  have  paid  him, 
as  he  has  paid  the  inventors,  and  they  may  plead  that  a  monopoly 
is  oppressive. 

One  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendants,  invited  you  to 
notice  the  superior  excellence,  on  their  part,  in  conducting  this 
cause.  When  you  perceive  the  fragrance,  you  may  be  sure  the 
rose  is  near.  "When  you  see  a  modest  man,  you  may  expect  to  see 
his  merit  unfold.  You  have  had  an  instance  of  frankness  in  the 
miserable  design,  of  holding  back  that  iron  wheel,  until  the  very 
last,  and  then  rolling  it  in  as  a  wheel  cast  according  to  pattern  B. 
You  had  another  instance  of  frankness  and  magnanimity,  when,  af- 
ter the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendants,  who  has  just  preceded  me, 
had  interrupted  my  associate  when  he  was  arguing  that  the  Tiers 
wheel  had  never  been  cast,  and  was  not  like  our  wheel,  by  saying 
that  the  defendants  claimed  nothing  in  that  respect,  and  that  argu- 
ment upon  it  was  unnecessary,  and  then,  when  my  associate  had 
desisted,  that  same  counsel  arose,  and  standing  here,  perverted  the 
testimony  of  Tiers  in  the  most  extravagant  and  unwarrantable  man- 
ner. And  when  to  all  this  is  added  the  high-mindedness  of  denoun- 
cing our  system  of  patent  laws  as  a  monopoly,  we  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  humble  ourselves  before  the  superiority  of  our  opponents. 

I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  to  believe  me  when  I  say,  that  you  are 
capable  of  learning  something  new,  in  regard  to  the  exercise  of 
this  faculty  of  invention.  It  is  not  like  creation,  an  instantaneous 
and  a  perfect  thing ;  but  it  is  a  progressive  and  an  imperfect 
thing.  Invention,  is  finding  out  in  the  dark.  It  is  groping  in  a 
cavern,  stored  with  all  things  adapted  for  our  purposes.  The  steam 
engine  was  conceived  one  hundred  years  before  it  floated  on  the 
water,  or  traversed  the  land.  It  was  described  in  1783,  an  engine 


INVENTION.  521 

as  complete  as  it  could  be.  But  the  Hudson  received,  long  after 
that,  the  first  burden  of  a  boat  floated  by  steam.  I  have  seen  in 
a  distant  land,  a  monument  to  the  man  who  perfected  the  steam 
engine  so  that  it  produced  motion.  And  what  was  the  achieve- 
ment of  Fulton  ?  It  was  that  when  the  steam  engine  had  been 
perfected,  he  stumbled  upon  the  manner  of  applying  it  to  move  a 
boat.  When  was  the  Magnetic  Telegraph  discovered  ?  The  germ 
of  it  was  brought  to  light  by  Franklin,  when  he  brought  down 
electricity  from  the  clouds  by  means  of  a  kite.  Yet  that  was 
seventy  years  ago.  And  it  was  only  within  a  few  years  that  the 
manner  of  applying  that  principle  has  been  discovered.  A  cause 
precedes  an  effect.  One  thing  always  precedes  or  produces 
another.  The  carriage  wheel  produced  the  first  railroad  wheel — 
of  course  it  was  a  spoke  wheel.  The  inventor  gropes  in  a  cavern, 
holding  on  to  a  chain  that  is  suspended  to  the  throne  of  God,  who 
permits  him  to  grasp  but  a  single  link  at  a  time.  There  must  be 
the  boll  of  rotting  flax,  before  there  can  be  the  bridal  veil.  There 
must  be  the  egg  before  the  eagle,  the  thought  before  the  thing. 

"  We  learn  upon  a  hint,  we  find  upon  a  clue, 
From  the  basket  and  acanthus  is  modeled  the  graceful  capital 
The  shadowed  profile  on  the  wall  helpeth  the  limner  to  his  likeness ; 
The  foot-marks  stamped  on  the  clay,  lead  on  the  thoughts  to  printing ; 
The  strange  skin  garments  cast  upon  the  shore,  suggest  another  hemisphere  ; 
A  falling  apple  taught  the  sage  prevailing  gravitation  ; 
The  Huron  is  certain  of  his  prey  from  tracks  upon  the  grass, 
And  shrewdness,  guessing  on  the  hint,  followeth  the  trail ; 
But  the  hint  must  be  given,  the  trail  must  be  there,  or  the  keenest  sight  is  as 
blindness." 

The  invention  of  anything  is  divisible,  like  any  human  fabric 
or  structure.  It  has  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end.  One 
man  may  begin  an  invention.  From  a  footstep  in  the  sand  he  may 
conceive  the  idea  of  printing.  But  he  dies,  and  the  thought  per- 
ishes with  him.  Is  he  an  inventor?  Another  man  takes  the  hint 
from  him  and  grasps  another  link  in  the  chain.  You  may  en- 
grave on  a  seal  the  letters  of  your  name  and  stamp  them  on  wax. 
That  was  done  long  before  the  invention  of  printing.  But  was 
the  invention  of  printing  thereby  complete  ?  So  far  from  it,  that 
Faust,  who  engraved  letters  on  type,  and  employed  a  machine 
to  stamp  impressions  of  them  on  paper,  so  astounded  the  world, 
that  it  was  charged  and  believed  that  he  was  assisted  by  the 
devil. 

Since,  then,  invention  is  divisible,  it  is  important  to  determine 
what  is  the  act  of  invention.  Is  it  the  beginning,  the  middle,  or 


522  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

the  end  ?  Is  the  inventor  he  who  takes  the  first  step,  he  who 
stops  at  the  second,  or  he  who  completes  the  invention  ?  All 
cannot  have  the  reward,  though  all  may  be  meritorious.  The  in- 
vention is  the  end,  not  the  beginning.  "  Finis  coronat  o^ms"  is  a 
maxim  of  sound  philosophy,  that  has  come  down  to  us  through 
a  thousand  generations.  The  law  praises  and  approves  the  end, 
and  rewards  the  final  inventor.  And  for  this  there  is  a  reason, 
founded  in  immutable  justice,  because  he  alone  is  a  benefactor. 
He  who  thought  of  the  invention  was  a  well-wisher  to  his  race. 
He  who  desisted  and  left  it  unfinished  was  unfortunate  or  unwor- 
thy. But  till  it  was  perfect  and  practical,  the  invention  was  of 
no  value.  The  final  inventor  is  the  benefactor,  and  for  him  the 
odious  monopoly  was  created. 

What  other  rule  could  there  be  ?  The  thought  may  perish  and 
has  often  perished.  Men  have  died  victims  to  their  zeal,  in  grasp- 
ing to  reach  the  last  link  in  the  chain,  which  offered  itself  by  acci- 
dent to  him  who  came  after.  But  he  was  successful,  and  he  alone 
became  entitled  to  the  reward.  All  who  preceded  him,  though 
deserving,  merited  only  praise. 

This  is  no  speculation.  There  is  a  rule  of  law  founded  in  this 
principle.  He  who  commences  an  experiment,  but  only  experi- 
ments, and  produces  an  imperfect  thing,  and  abandons  it  because 
it  is  unsuccessful,  is  adjudged  not  to  be  the  inventor. 

The  abandonment  of  a  mode  raises  a  strong  presumption,  either 
that  it  failed  or  was  merely  an  experiment. 

If  an  alleged  invention  be  not  pursued,  the  presumption  is  that 
it  was  not  made  in  a  useful  form. 

The  abandonment  is  an  important  question  for  determining  whe- 
ther what  took  place  was  experimental,  or  a  perfected  and  com- 
plete invention. 

Mere  experiment,  though  successful,  is,  if  abandoned,  no  ground 
for  a  claim  to  invention.  The  plaintiff's  wheel  may  have  been 
made  before  his  patentees  made  it.  But  if  the  making  of  it  was 
abandoned,  then  there  was  only  experiment,  which  avails  nothing. 
If  those  who  made  it  before  did  not  know  that  they  had  been  suc- 
cessful, the  reward  belongs  to  the  more  fortunate  and  more  per- 
severing inventor. 


DEFENCE  OF  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.* 

INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. — In  May,  1851,  an  announcement  was  made  by  the  press  of 
Detroit,  that  an  atrocious  conspiracy  (embracing  fifty  citizens  of  Jackson  county,  in 
the  state  of  Michigan,)  for  the  destruction  of  the  property  of  the  Michigan  Central 
Rail  Road  Company,  and  an  indiscriminate  war  against  the  lives  of  passengers  travel- 
ling on  the  road,  had  been  discovered,  through  the  activity  of  agents  of  that  company, 
and  of  the  police,  and  that  the  guilty  parties  had  been  suddenly  surprised,  arrested, 
and  conveyed  to  jail  in  Detroit. 

The  accusation  took  the  form  of  an  indictment  for  arson,  in  burning  the  depot  of  that 
company  at  Detroit,  and  the  proof  that  of  a  conspiracy,  for  the  commission  of  that  and 
other  great  crimes.  The  prisoners  alleged  their  entire  innocence,  and  declared  that  the 
prosecution  was  itself  a  conspiracy,  to  convict  them,  by  fabricated  testimony,  of  a  crime 
that  had  not  even  been  committed. 

The  accused  parties  denied  combination  with  each  other,  and  even  all  knowledge  of 
the  principal,  who  was  alleged  to  have  committed  the  crime,  and  who,  as  they  supposed, 
had  been  fraudulently  induced  to  confess  it  and  charge  them  as  accomplices.  In  ap- 
plying to  be  admitted  to  bail,  the  sums  were  fixed  so  high  as  to  practically  deny  them 
that  privilege. 

Public  opinion  was  vehemently  and  intensely  excited  against  them,  by  reason  of 
aggressions,  that  had  been  committed  in  their  neighborhood  for  a  long  time,  seriously 
endangering  the  lives  of  passengers.  Among  the  accused  were  persons  in  every  walk 
of  life,  and  while  the  guilt  of  some  seemed  too  probable,  that  of  all  appeared  to  be 
quite  impossible.  The  ten  most  distinguished  lawyers  of  Michigan,  were  retainedj 
before  the  arrest,  by  the  Rail  Road  Company,  to  conduct  the  prosecution,  and  it  was 
said  that  every  other  counsellor  in  the  city  and  state  qualified  to  defend  them,  except 
one,  had  been  induced  to  decline  to  appear  in  their  behalf. 

They  applied  to  Mr.  Seward,  at  Auburn,  by  telegraph,  after  the  trial  had  begun, 
stating  these  facts. 

He  did  not  hesitate  to  appear  for  men  whom  the  public  had  prejudged  and  con- 
demned, and  whom  the  legal  profession,  except  for  his  going  to  their  aid,  would  have 
been  deemed  to  have  abandoned. 

The  issues  were  perplexed.  The  evidence  was  of  p  most  extraordinary  character. 
Even  now,  it  is  impossible  on  reading  it,  to  decide  which  was  most  improbable,  the 
existence  of  the  crime,  or  the  truth  of  the  defence.  The  trial  lasted  four  months,  and 
so  was  the  longest,  in  a  jury  case,  that  was  ever  held.  The  alleged  principal  died 
before  the  trial  began. 

One  of  the  chief  defendants,  and  another  more  obscure,  died  during  its  progress 

*  Detroit,  Michigan,  September,  1851. 


524  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

Twelve  of  the  fifty  defendants  were  convicted,  and  all  the  others  acquitted.  All  these 
circumstances,  together  with  the  ability  and  learning  displayed,  mark  the  case  as  one 
of  the  great  state  trials  of  this  country.  Mr.  Seward's  Argument  was  published  at 
the  time  ;  it  reviewed,  collated  and  condensed  the  testimony  of  four  hundred  witnesses, 
presenting  a  very  complicated  series  of  transactions,  private  and  public. 

This  speech  fills  more  than  one  hundred  pages  in  the  report  of  the  trial.  To  that 
report  we  refer  the  reader,  regretting  that  our  limits  allow  us  to  present  only  the  intro- 
duction and  the  close  of  so  elaborate  and  interesting  a  speech. — ED. 

MAT    IT    PLEASE    THE    COURT GENTLEMEN    OF    THE    JlJKY  I 

This  is  Detroit,  the  commercial  metropolis  of  Michigan.  It  is 
a  prosperous  and  beautiful  city,  and  is  worthy  of  your  pride.  I 
have  enjoyed  its  hospitalities  liberal  and  long.  May  it  stand  and 
grow  and  flourish  forever.  Seventy  miles  westward,  toward  the 
centre  of  the  Peninsula,  in  the  county  of  Jackson,  is  Leoni,  a 
rural  district,  containing  two  new  and  obscure  villages,  Leoni  and 
Michigan  Centre.  Here,  in  this  dock,  are  the  chief  members  of 
that  community.  Either  they  have  committed  a  great  crime 
against  this  Capital,  or  there  is  here  a  conspiracy  of  infamous  per- 
sons seeking  to  effect  their  ruin,  by  the  machinery  of  the  law.  A 
state  that  allows  great  criminals  to  go  unpunished,  or  great  con- 
spiracies to  prevail,  can  enjoy  neither  peace,  security,  nor  respect. 
This  trial  occurs  in  the  spring-time  of  the  state.  It  involves  so 
many  private  and  public  interests,  develops  transactions  so  singu- 
lar, and  is  attended  by  incidents  so  touching,  that  it  will  probably 
be  regarded  not  only  as  an  important  judicial  event  in  the  history 
of  Michigan,  but  also  as  entitled  to  a  place  among  the  extraordi- 
nary state  trials  of  our  country  and  of  our  times. 

Forty  and  more  citizens  of  this  state  were  accused  of  a  felony, 
and  demanded,  what  its  constitution  assured  them,  a  trial  by  jury. 
An  advocate  was  indispensable  in  such  a  trial.  They  required  me 
to  assume  that  office,  on  the  ground  of  necessity.  I  was  an  advo- 
cate by  profession.  For  me  the  law  had  postponed  the  question 
of  their  guilt  or  innocence.  Can  any  one  furnish  me  with  what 
would  have  been  a  sufficient  excuse  for  refusing  their  demand  ? 
Hoc  maxime  officii  est,  ut  quisquam  maxime  opus  mdigeat,  ita  ei 
potissimum  opitulari,*  was  the  instruction  given  by  Cicero.  Can 
the  American  lawyer  find  a  better  rule  of  conduct,  or  one  derived 
from  higher  authority  ? 

A   word,    gentlemen,    on    the    origin    and    progress   of    this 

*  The  clear  point  of  duty  is,  to  assist  most  readily  those  who  most  need  assistance. 


DEFENCE  OP  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  525 

controversy — not  to  excuse  the    defendants  nor  to  arraign   the 
state. 

Fifteen  years  ago,  Michigan  attempted  to  stretch  a  railroad  across 
the  peninsula,  from  shore  to  shore.     It  was  honorable  even  to  fail 
in  so  noble  a  design.    An  imperfect  road  was  built,  reaching  from 
Detroit  to  Kalamazoo,  and  was  travelled  by  a  few  slothful  engines. 
The  state  conducted  it,  as  the  state  conducts  every  thing,  with 
conciliation  and  kindness  toward  the  people.     Necessity  obliged 
the  state  to  give  the  enterprise    over   to  a   corporation,  which 
speedily  extended  the  road  to  the  western  waters,  and  brought  it 
into  a  perfect  condition.     Engines  increased  equally  in  numbers 
and  in  speed,  and  the  road  became  a  thoroughfare  alike  useful 
and  important  to  the  citizens  of  Michigan  and  to  the  whole  country. 
This  public  gain  was  attended  by  the  usual  conflict  between  the 
corporation  and  citizens,  about  routes,  titles,  prices,  stations  and 
property  unavoidably  taken,  injured  or  destroyed.     The  regions 
through  which  it  passed  were  newly  opened.     Their  inhabitants 
were  settlers,  and  settlers  are  generally  poor.     Their  farms  were 
not  fenced.  Public  roads,  as  well  as  public  lands,  were  habitually 
used  as  ranges  for  pasturage.     Cattle,  often  the  settler's  only  con- 
vertible property,  were  frequently  destroyed.     The  change  was 
sudden  and  abrupt.     The  corporation  refused  to  pay  damages ; 
the  settler  insisted  on  them.     Litigation  ensued,  and  failed  to  set- 
tle the  contested  claim.     The  corporation  offered  half  price,  as  a 
compromise.    The  settler  regarded  this  as  a  concession  of  the  right 
and  insisted  on  the  whole.      Jealousy  of  wealth  and  power  in- 
flamed the  controversy.      Occasionally  a  settler  retaliated,  and 
ultimately  several  united  in  committing  trespasses.      The  corpo- 
ration invoked  the  legal  tribunals,  but  failed  for  want  of  evidence. 
The  controversy  became  embittered,  chiefly  in  Jackson  county. 
On  the  night  of  the  19th  of  November  last,  the  freight  depot  at 
Detroit  tolok:  fire  and  was  reduced  to  ashes.     No  one  dreamed,  or 
ever  would  have  dreamed  of  an  incendiary,  had  not  a  public  out- 
cast, lured  by  the  tempting  rewards  of  the  corporation,  conceived 
the  thought  of  enriching  himself  by  charging  the  crime  committed 
here  upon  persons  in  Jackson  county,  obnoxious  for  trespasses 
committed  there.     lie  secretly  gave  body  and  form  to  that  suspi- 
cion, and  on  the  19th  of  April  last,  it  resulted  in  the  alleged  dis- 
closure of  a  long  concerted,  profoundly  contrived,  and  deliberately 

YOL.  1—34. 


526  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

executed  conspiracy  by  citizens  of  Leoni  for  the  entire  demolition 
of.  the  rails  and  structures  of  the  Michigan  Central  Railroad. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  state,  by  neglecting  to  provide  for  the 
consequences  of  the  sudden  change  of  its  policy,  caused  its  citi- 
zens "  to  stumble  in  their  ways  from  the  ancient  paths,  to  walk 
in  paths  in  a  way  not  cast  up." 

There  has  been  a  wild  and  fearful  conflict.  On  one  side, 
unbridled,  licentious  speech,  retaliation  of  private  wrongs  upon 
the  body  politic,  by  reprisals,  reckless  of  condition,  sex  or  age, 
and  of  distinction  between  the  offending  and  the  guiltless;  on 
the  other,  a  corporate  police  of  mercenary  spies,  pursuing  and 
haunting  the  steps  of  all  who  were  exposed  to  their  suspicion  or 
their  malice.  Secret  accusations  were  laboriously  compiled  by 
scribes  and  verified  by  oaths  before  magistrates,  with  the  care- 
fully studied  and  profoundly  concealed  purpose  of  obtaining, 
in  some  way,  evidence  enough  to  sustain  an  accusation  against 
citizens  of  Leoni  of  some  crime  or  crimes  for  which  they  could 
be  tried  away  from  Jackson  county. 

When  all  was  matured,  an  indictment  was  speedily  found 
against  Abel  F.  Fitch  and  others,  for  burning  the  depot  at  De- 
troit ;  another  for  conspiracy  to  burn  the  new  depot  which  had 
arisen  in  its  place ;  another  for  burning  the  depot  at  Niles ; 
another  for  conspiring  to  burn  the  depot  at  Marshall ;  another 
in  the  United  States  Court,  for  manufacturing  and  passing  coun- 
terfeit money  ;  and  still  another  for  burning  the  public  mails. 
Civil  actions  were  simultaneously  brought  against  the  defendants. 
Bail  in  frightful  sums,  was  exacted  in  each  of  these  actions  and 
on  every  one  of  these  indictments.  Able  and  sympathising  friends 
were  ready  to  become  bound  ;  but  the  wealth  of  Jackson  county 
could  not  meet  the  large  demand,  and  the  defendants,  ever  since, 
have  been  held  fast  as  in  a  cage  of  iron.  The  corporation  em- 
ployed ten  lawyers  among  the  most  eminent  within  the  state,  and 
assuming  the  direction  of  the  prosecution  and  defraying  a  large 
portion  of  its  expense,  has  poured  forth,  through  the  lips  of  its 
witnesses,  the  compiled  volume  of  secretly  gathered  accusations. 
The  prisoners  have  come  daily  into  court  to  encounter  these  accu- 
sations, and  have  returned  at  night  to  confront  pestilential  disease 
in  the  jail.  The  press  of  Michigan  received  the  disclosures  as 
true,  and  proclaimed  them  to  the  world.  The  press  throughout 
the  whole  country,  accepting  the  disclosures,  responded  in  expres- 


DEFENCE  OF  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  527 

sions  of  horror  to  what  it  regarded  as  evidence  of  a  universal 
demoralization  in  Michigan,  and  demanded  immediate  punish- 
ment of  the  accused,  with  a  restoration  of  the  earlier  and  more 
rigorous  penal  code  of  the  state. 

Meanwhile,  death,  by  removing  the  lowest  and  the  highest  of 
the  alleged  offenders,  has  invested  the  transaction  with  the  solem- 
nity of  tragedy.  Keaction  has  come,  and  with  it,  division  of 
opinion  and  of  sympathy.  It  is  a  strife  between  a  corporation 
and  the  city  of  Detroit  on  the  one  side,  and  the  county  of  Jack- 
son on  the  other.  The  question  is  vehemently  discussed,  whether 
Abel  F.  Fitch  died  a  felon  or  a  victim  of  cruel  oppression.  Op- 
position to  the  corporation,  on  whatever  grounds,  confining  itself 
within  legal  limits,  of  course  gains  strength  by  moderation.  Cor- 
porate wealth  cannot  long  oppress  the  citizen  in  such  a  country 
and  under  such  a  government  as  this.  Your  verdict  against  these 
defendants,  if  it  should  appear  to  be  well  grounded  upon  the  evi- 
dence, should  abate  a  rapidly  rising  popular  commotion  ;  but,  if 
it  should  not  be  so  sustained  by  the  evidence,  a  people  who  make 
the  wrongs  of  each  one  the  common  cause  of  all,  will  pick  strong 
matter  of  wrath  out  of  the  bloody  finger's  ends  of  a  successful 
conspiracy.  You  have  discrimination,  candor  and  courage.  You 
have  need  to  exercise  them  all.  You  cannot  escape  present  cen- 
sure, whether  you  find  the  defendants  guilty  or  innocent.  But  if 
your  verdict  be  a  truthful  one,  it  will  receive  its  vindication  in 
history. 

[Here  Mr.  Seward  reviewed  at  length  the  evidence  on  the 
alleged  conspiracy.] 

The  railroad  company,  unable  to  convince  the  farmers  of  Jack- 
son county  that  half  price  was  enough  for  cattle  destroyed,  and 
unable  to  arrest  the  depredations  which  were  committed  by  way 
of  reprisal,  resorted  to  a  system  of  espionage.  On  the  10th  of 
August,  1849,  they  offered  a  reward  of  $500  for  proof  sufficient 
to  convict  any  one  person  of  any  one  unlawful  overt  act,  past, 
present  or  to  come.  I  am  not  complaining  of  this.  It  becomes 
necessary  to  expose  this  system  before  you,  for  the  purpose  of 
testing  the  value  of  the  evidence  which  has  been  procured  by  it. 
The  railroad  company  employed  a  corps  of  spies  to  watch  and  to 
circumvent  suspected  citizens,  paying  them  compensation,  varying 
from  seven  shillings  and  $2  per  day  or  night,  to  $40  per  month. 
How  large  that  corps  was  is  unknown.  But  it  numbered  one 


528  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

hundred  at  one  time,  and  no  less  than  fifteen  of  its  members  have 
appeared  here  as  witnesses  to  sustain  this  prosecution.  *  * 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  Not  only  do  I  rejoice  that  no 
human  life  has  been  lost,  nor  limb  broken,  but  I  condemn  these 
outrages  as  atrocious,  cruel  and  inhuman.  Their  only  alleviation 
is  that  they  proceeded  from  passion  ;  and  passion,  dark  and  stum- 
bling, in  individual  men,  is  blinder  still  in  masses,  where  a  sense 
of  individual  responsibility  is  lost.  But  that  constitutes  no  justi- 
fication. I  sympathise  in  no  hostility  to  the  Michigan  Central 
Railroad — in  no  hostility  to  corporations — in  no  hostility  to  wealth. 
I  rejoice  in  the  completion  of  every  new  link  in  that  chain  of  in- 
ternal communication,  upon  which  I  rely  to  bind  together  the 
ever  changing  boundaries  of  this  vast  empire.  I  would  indeed 
hold  corporations,  as  I  would  private  citizens,  to  the  practice  of 
justice  and  moderation ;  but  I  know  of  no  legitimate  redress,  in 
a  government  of  laws,  but  redress  by  law,  and  by  constitutional 
change  of  laws.  I  regret  that  these  aggressions  remain  unpun- 
ished. I  trust  they  will  yet  be  punished,  and  that  the  majesty  of 
the  law  will  yet  receive  its  ample  vindication. 

A  corporation,  enjoying  a  monopoly  of  carrying  the  person  and 
property  of  citizens  over  a  great  national  highway,  and  deriving 
from  it  an  income  exceeding  by  three-fold  the  revenues  of  the 
state,  has  become,  in  this  season  of  alarm,  a  power  behind  the 
state,  greater  than  the  state  itself ;  and  now  we  see  the  wisdom  of 
a  saying  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  himself  a  sovereign.  Beyond  a 
doubt  his  own  court  was  infested  by  a  nest  of  caterpillars  like 
these,  when  he  admonished  the  unwary  :  "  Curse  not  the  king ; 
no,  not  in  thy  thought ;  and  curse  not  the  rich,  even  in  thy  bed- 
chamber ;  for  a  bird  of  the  air  shall  carry  thy  voice,  and  that 
which  hath  wings  shall  tell  of  the  matter." 

Regarding  the  witnesses  produced  in  this  case  as  mere  spies 
and  informers,  unconvicted  of  crime,  uncontradicted  and  unim- 
peached,  what  is  their  moral  standard  in  a  virtuous  commonwealth  ? 
Hear  what  Addison  said,  for  he  was  not  only  a  moralist  but  a  Sec- 
retary of  State,  "  A  man  wrho  is  capable  of  so  infamous  a  calling 
as  that  of  a  spy  is  not  very  much  to  be  relied  upon.  He  can  have 
no  great  ties  of  honor  or  checks  of  conscience  to  restrain  him  in 
those  covert  evidences,  where  the  accused  has  no  opportunity  of 
vindicating  himself.  He  will  be  more  industrious  to  carry  that 
which  is  grateful  than  that  which  is  true.  There  will  be  no  occa- 


DEFENCE  OE  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  529 

sion  for  him,  if  he  do  not  hear  and  see  things  worth  discovering  • 
so  that  he  naturally  inflames  every  word  and  every  circumstance 
aggravates  what  is  faulty,  perverts  what  is  good,  and  misrepre- 
sents what  is  indifferent.  Nor  is  it  to  be  doubted  that  such  igno- 
minious wretches  let  their  private  passions  into  tJiese  their  clan- 
destine informations,  and  often  wreak  their  particular  spite  and 
malice  against  those  they  are  set  to  watch."  If  this  is  wise  mo- 
rality, (and  it  has  been  universally  received,)  and  if  there  is  sound 
philosophy  in  the  old  Spanish  proverb,  "  bad  the  crow,  bad  the 
egg,"  we  shall  be  at  no  loss  to  appreciate  the  evidence  before  us. 
It  is  a  mountain  of  falsehood,  with  here  and  there  a  grain  of  truth. 
When  I  look  upon  the  men  who  occupy  the  place  on  my  right 
hand,  and  recognize  among  them  pioneers  of  the  state,  its  farmers, 
its  mechanics,  and  its  citizens ;  and  then  on  this  legion  of  spies, 
and  find  there  on  the  witness-stand  convicts  yet  wearing  the  look 
and  the  gait  contracted  in  the  State  Prison,  and  see  others  come 
reeking  from  the  stews  of  the  city  ;  I  ask  myself,  can  it  be  real  ? 
Does  honesty  dwell  in  the  penitentiary,  and  crime  stalk  abroad 
over  the  state  ?  Is  the  city  pure,  and  the  country  polluted  ?  Has 
truth  fled  from  the  hearth  of  the  farmer  in  the  country,  and  taken 
shelter  in  the  purlieus  of  the  metropolis  ?  No !  I  am  not  in 
Michigan.  I  am  in  Venice,  where  an  aristocratic  senate  keeps 
always  open  the  lion's  mouth,  as  well  by  day  as  by  night,  gaping 
for  accusations  against  the  plebeian  and  the  patriot.  I  am  in  Syra- 
cuse, and  see  before  me  the  dungeon  which  the  tyrant  has  erected, 
with  cells  in  which  he  has  imprisoned  those  he  fears,  and  with 
walls  constructed  on  the  model  of  the  human  ear,  so  that  its  cu- 
rious channels  convey  to  him  even  suppressed  groans,  and  sighs, 
and  whispered  complaints. 

But  first,  where  is  the  truth  of  these  accusations  to  be  tried  ? 
They  are  accusations  of  local  offences  which  ought  of  right  to  be 
tried  at  home  where  the  accused  parties  live,  by  a  jury  of  that 
vicinage,  and  not  elsewhere  nor  by  a  jury  of  strangers.  The  ac- 
cused ought  to  be  at  large  on  bail,  to  procure  the  evidence  to  con- 
front the  calumniators  ;  and  yet  they  have  been  dragged  seventy 
miles  from  their  homes,  out  of  their  own  county  of  Jackson, 
through  the  intervening  county  of  "Washtenaw,  and  have  been 
put  on  trial  for  local  offences,  here  before  a  foreign  court,  by  a 
jury  of  strangers,  in  a  community  which,  in  judgment  of  law,  is 
to  them  a  community  of  aliens  and  enemies.  Nay  more,  when 


530  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

sickness  has  befallen  a  juror,  and  when  disease  has  prostrated  a 
defendant  in  his  cell,  the  prosecution  have  complained  of  the  cost 
of  delay,  and  have  vehemently  reproached  the  prisoners,  because 
they  would  not  surrender  almost  the  only  constitutional  rights  left 
them  of  being  tried  by  twelve  jurors  and  by  no  less,  and  of  being 
present  in  person  during  their  trial.  But  I  mistake.  This  is  not 
the  act  of  citizens  of  Detroit,  for  they  are  a  humane  people.  It- 
is  not  the  act  of  Michigan,  for  it  is  a  just  and  benignant  common- 
wealth. It  is  not  the  act  even  of  the  Michigan  Central  Railroad 
Company.  It  is  the  act  of  agents  of  that  corporation,  who  have 
dared  to  misuse  their  powers  and  to  assume  the  police  authority 
of  the  state.  I  know,  and  I  feel  well  assured  that  the  acquittal 
of  these  defendants  will  be  received  with  satisfaction  by  the  citi- 
zens of  the  metropolis,  and  will  be  approved  even  by  the  corpo- 
ration itself ;  while  it  will  go  abroad  with  healing  on  its  wings  for 
public  discontents  pervading  the  state. 

[Mr.  Seward  reviews  the  character  of  the  principal  (Abel  F. 
Fitch)  among  the  accused,  and  also  the  chief  witnesses  against 
him,  in  the  following  passages  :] 

"Who  believes  Abel  F.  Fitch  to  have  been  insane?  ISTo  one. 
Who  believes  that  a  sane,  educated  man,  living  in  such  a  country 
as  this,  could  conceive  a  purpose  so  atrocious,  or  that,  conceiving 
it,  he  would  impart  it  to  another  ?  Abel  F.  Fitch  was  a  man  of 
education,  position  and  fortune — in  all  these  respects  surpassed 
by  few  in  Michigan.  He  was  a  public  officer,  respected  and 
honored  at  home,  with  troops  of  friends  bound  to  him  by  clasps 
of  steel,  in  various  parts  of  the  state.  Is  there  no  truth  in  the 
ancient  maxim :  "  Nemo  repente  fuit  turpissimus  /"*  Is  there 
any  height  of  crime  towering  above  what  is  here  alleged  to  have 
been  reconnoitered  ?  Four  months  ago  Abel  F.  Fitch  came  here 
an  object  of  public  fear  and  hatred,  borne  down  by  the  scorn  of 
his  country,  and  of  mankind.  He  went  in  and  out  before  you. 
You  saw  him  every  day  harassed,  insulted,  reviled,  by  such  tes- 
timony as  this — you  saw  him  meek,  gentle,  confiding,  cheerful, 
and  enduring.  You  know  his  death.f  It  was  peaceful,  tranquil, 
— the  death  of  a  man  loving  all  good  things  on  earth,  yet  resign- 
ing them  cheerfully  in  hopes  of  better  things  in  heaven. 

*  "  No  man  reaches  the  heights  of  crime  at  once." 
t  He  died  in  prison  during  the  trial. 


DEFENCE  OF  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  531 

Who  was  George  W.  Gay  ?*  A  man  of  fifty  years  or  upwards, 
who  had  been  convicted  of  more  than  twenty  crimes,  ranging 
from  petit  larceny  to  murder,  who  had  been  more  than  once  a 
tenant  of  state  prisons  in  several  states,  a  man  who  lived  in  daily 
association  with  culprits,  and  who  at  the  time  kept  a  house  of  ill- 
fame,  and  thus  subsisted  by  the  debasement  of  one  sex,  while  he 
harbored  the  most  depraved  of  the  other.  He  eagerly  accepted 
Phelps'  proposition  to  burn  the  new  depot  in  Detroit,  and  to  charge 
the  commission  of  the  crime  upon  his  recreant  associate  Boyce, 
and  to  suborn  witnesses  to  fasten  it  upon  him,  and  thereby  procure 
the  discharge  of  Yan  Sickle,  while  he  would  at  the  same  time 
secure,  as  he  alleged,  a  double  reward  of  two  hundred  dollors  from 
supposed  enemies  of  the  railroad  company  for  burning  the  depot, 
and  one  thousand  dollars  from  the  railroad  company,  for  false  in- 
formation concerning  the  incendiary.  Need  I  say  more  to  show 
that  Gay's  character  was  so  infamous  as  to  deprive  his  unsworn, 
uncorroborated  testimony  of  all  claims  to  credit  ? 

Henry  Phelps  was  convicted,  and  underwent  nearly  in  its  whole 
extent,  the  penalty  of  the  crime  of  stealing  horses.  He  says  he 
was  unjustly  convicted.  That  was  his  plea  when  on  trial,  but  it  was 
proved  to  be  false. 

Heman  Lake  was  convicted  of  aiding  a  thief  in  his  escape  from 
prison,  and  suffered  the  full  penalty  of  the  law.  Counsel  deny 
that  the  crime  of  which  he  was  thus  convicted  has  rendered  him 
infamous.  The  distinction  is  a  technical  one,  not  worthy  of  an 
argument.  Larceny  is  an  infamous  crime.  He  who  assists  a  thief 
to  escape  from  punishment  was  probably  himself  an  accomplice 
in  the  crime  of  the  thief,  at  least  he  must  be  moved  by  sympa- 
thies as  immoral  and  criminal  as  the  act  of  larceny  itself.  Thus 
,  these  two  witnesses  stand  before  you  as  men  convicted  of  infamous 
crimes ;  men,  "  the  credit  of  whose  oaths,  although  it  should  be 
without  any  contradiction  or  impeachment,  is  overbalanced  by 
the  stain  of  their  iniquity." 

It  is  certainly  a  work  of  supererogation  to  prove  that  a  person 
convicted  of  an  infamous  crime  is  esteemed  in  the  community  in 
which  he  lives  unworthy  of  credit,  for  that  is  only  to  prove,  in  an 
individual  case,  the  soundness  of  the  legal  maxim,  "  that  infa- 
mous crimes  indicate  a  mind  insensible  to  the  obligations  of  an 
oath."  I  think  this  is  the  first  case  in  which  the  prejudiced  state 

*  Gay's  confessions  were  proved  by  Phelps  and  Lake,  the  chief  witnesses  of  the  prosecution . 


532  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

of  the  public  mind  has  required,  that  a  witness  who  had  been 
thus  convicted,  should  be  impeached  by  his  general  bad  reputation 
in  regard  to  truth  and  veracity.  That  proceeding  has  been  adopted 
in  this  case  in  regard  to  Phelps.  But  who  is  Henry  Phelps  ?  He 
is  the  prosecutor  on  whose  naked  oath  fifty  citizens  were  arrested, 
and  upon  whose  oath,  chiefly,  if  not  altogether,  the  indictment  in 
this  case  was  found.  Upon  his  oath,  sustained  by  his  confederate 
Lake,  this  prosecution  is  suspended.  He  was  born  in  Bloomfield, 
Ontario  County,  !N".  Y.,  in  1841,  a  son  of  respectable  parents,  who 
lived  in  easy  circumstances.  He  removed  with  them  to  Wheat- 
land,  Monroe  County,  during  his  childhood.  He  received  an 
education,  which,  although  not  a  liberal  one,  surpassed  what  was 
ordinarily  obtained  in  country  schools  and  academies,  and  which 
qualified  a  vigorous  and  shrewd  mind  sufficiently  for  any  kind  of 
business,  in  any  department  of  private  or  of  public  life.  He 
came  to  Michigan  with  his  parents,  and  settled  in  Highland,  Oak- 
land County,  in  1835.  He  pursued  no  regular  occupation  there, 
but  was  forward  and  active.  He  conducted  litigation  in  justices7 
courts,  and  was  at  that  time  called,  (according  to  the  testimony  of 
one  of  his  friends,)  "  a  fine  fellow."  He  was  elected  town  clerk, 
and  commissioned  as  captain  in  the  dragoons  of  the  militia.  But 
nothing  that  he  began  was  ever  finished,  nothing  that  he  planted 
ever  ripened.  Political  preferment  ceased,  when  rumors  of  false- 
hoods and  frauds  gained  circulation.  The  dragoons  who  enlisted 
under  his  command  never  equipped,  and  they  were  ultimately 
disbanded.  After  five  years  thus  spent,  he  went  to  Michigan 
Centre,  where  Abel  F.  Fitch  resided,  and  there  Phelps  bought  a 
distillery  and  its  stock,  with  drafts  on  a  person  in  Xew  York,  who 
could  never  be  found.  After  six  months  the  distillery  reverted, 
with  losses,  (never  yet  reimbursed,)  to  its  former  owner,  and 
Phelps  immediately  thereafter  became  a  merchant  at  Milford, 
near  Highland,  his  former  residence.  A  month  or  six  weeks 
passed  away,  and  the  stock  of  goods  was  suddenly  and  myste- 
riously surrendered  to  the  merchants  at  Buffalo,  from  whom  it 
had  been  purchased,  and  Phelps  resumed  his  business  as  an  advo- 
cate in  justices'  courts.  He  married  about  this  time,  and  the  coun- 
sel who  defend  him  here  say  he  has  children.  His  affidavits  were 
questioned,  his  arts  in  conducting  trials  suspected,  his  reputation 
waned,  and  after  three  or  four  years  he  was  convicted  of  the 
infamous  crime  which  has  been  mentioned.  He  was  subject  to 


DEFENCE  OF  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  533 

occasional  epileptic  convulsions.  He  feigned  them  durino-  his 
trial,  and  affected  sickness  to  avoid  judgment,  but  without  success. 
He  feigned  illness  to  excuse  himself  from  labor  in  the  prison. 
Suspected  and  closely  watched  there,  he  failed  to  propitiate  the 
police  until  the  sixth  month  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  term  had 
elapsed,  and  then  he  was  pardoned.  On  coining  out  of  prison  he 
gathered  his  family  in  his  ancient  home ;  but  habits  of  regular 
industry  and  domestic  occupation  disgusted  him.  He  invited  his 
associate  Lake,  who  had  just  been  discharged  from  prison,  to  join 
him,  but  at  first  without  success.  After  the  lapse  of  about  a  year, 
he  hired  himself  to  the  District  Attorney  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  occupation  of  what  is  called  a  stool  pigeon,  that  is,  one  who 
for  hire  joins  and  leads  villains  in  crime  to  betray  them  to  justice ; 
or,  as  it  was  described  by  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution,  the 
business  of  "  a  rogue  set  to  catch  rogues."  While  in  that  capacity, 
he  renewed  the  acquaintance  which  before  his  imprisonment  he 
had  maintained  with  Gay,  and  in  the  very  first  interview  opened 
to  him  the  plot,  if  he  is  to  be  believed,  to  screen  a  culprit  from 
punishment,  by  a  false  charge  of  the  crime  of  burning  a  depot, 
upon  an  unoffending  person.  Having  drawn  Gay  into  that  scheme, 
he  offered  himself  to  the  railroad  company  to  be  enrolled,  and 
was  accepted,  at  a  regular  salary  of  forty  dollars  a  month,  as  a 
member  of  their  band  of  spies  and  informers.  His  engagement 
was  to  furnish  sufficient  evidence  to  bring  Abel  F.  Fitch  and  his 
supposed  associates  to  trial,  for  some  felony  against  the  railroad, 
out  of  Jackson  County.  He  is  cunning,  plausible,  bold  and  per- 
severing. There  he  sits.  Men  imagine  that  they  see  his  history 
written  in  his  form  and  features.  They  say  that  he  looks  lean 
and  malicious, 

"  hollow  as  a  ghost, 
As  dim  aiicl  meagre  as  an  ague's  fits." 

They  say,  (superstitiously,  perhaps,)  that 

"  So  he'll  die, 

And  rising  so  again, 

His  mother,  when  she  shall  meet  him  in  the  court  of  Heaven, 
She  shall  not  know  him." 

He  is  impeached  by  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  witnesses,  all 
of  whom  say  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  bad,  many 
say  very  bad,  all  say  it  is  so  bad  they  would  not  give  him  credit  on 
oath.  He  has  lived  in  Sylvan,  since  he  came  out  of  prison.  Syl- 


534  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

van,  Grass  Lake  and  Sharon  are  contiguous.  These  three  towns 
send  one  hundred  and  eleven  of  the  witnesses.  Twenty -five  omitted 
to  state  the  distances  of  their  homes  from  Phelps'  residence.  The 
average  distance  of  the  remaining  eighty-six  is  two  miles  and  a 
third.  One  of  these,  an  honest  and  sensible  German,  persisted  in 
declaring  that  his  reason  for  discrediting  Phelps  was,  that  his 
heart  told  him  not  to  believe  a  man  who  had  been  in  state  prison. 
All  the  others  testified  from  a  knowledge  of  Phelps'  reputation, 
before  he  went  to  prison,  or  before  or  after  this  prosecution  began ; 
twenty-seven  of  reputation  since  he  came  from  the  prison,  and 
before  as  well  as  after  the  prosecution  commenced ;  eight  spoke 
of  his  character  before  he  went  to  prison,  and  not  afterwards ;  six, 
of  his  character  while  in  the  state  prison,  and  seventy-seven  of  his 
fame,  all  the  way  through  from  1840  until  now.  Enough  then  of 
Henry  Phelps. 

"  Room  for  the  Leper !  Room !" 

Few  words  will  suffice  for  Heman  Lake.  His  part  is  subordi- 
nate. He  is  only  a  shadow  of  Phelps.  His  testimony  an  echo. 
His  history,  therefore,  need  not  be  recited  at  length.  On  arriving 
at  manhood,  he  learned  something  of  engineering,  and  did  nobody 
knows  what  till  his  depraved  proclivities  bore  him  into  the  state 
prison.  There  he  was  a  friend  and  an  enemy  of  Phelps  by  turns. 
In  the  summer  of  1849,  Lake  declined  Phelps'  invitation  to  join 
him,  but  in  the  winter  following,  he  accepted  his  proposition,  to 
work,  at  he  knew  not  what,  for  the  railroad  company,  under  his 
direction.  He  is  a  "  gay  Lothario,"  and  having  been  introduced 
into  Gay's  house  as  a  spy  for  the  railroad  company,  he  atones  for 
the  unkindness  of  betraying  Gay,  by  taking  the  vacant  place  in 
the  bed  of  his  wife  immediately  after  the  husband's  arrest,  a 
place  which  he  retains  with  touching  fidelity,  when  by  Gay's 
death  in  prison,  that  wife  becomes  a  widow.  Provided  with  free 
tickets  for  himself  and  paramour,  Lake  openly  traverses  the  state 
with  her  in  the  railroad  cars — while  your  wives  and  daughters, 
pay  full  charges  on  the  great  public  thoroughfare.  He  is  well 
looking,  and  his  fingers  and  bosom  are  adorned  with  rings  and 
golden  charms,  tokens  of  manifold  and  meretricious  favor.  But 
he  is  a  man  of  feeble  mind,  and  executes  only  indifferently  well 
the  plots  of  Phelps.  He  testifies  from  a  diary,  in  which  even  the 
facts  observed  by  himself  are  recorded  by  his  master.  In  short 


DEFENCE  OF  ABEL  F.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  535 

lie  is  an  illustration  of  the  truth  that  "  a  pretty  fellow  is  but  half 
a  man." 

These  are  the  three  chief  witnesses  of  the  prosecution—  Gay, 
Pkelps,  and  Lake.  It  is  easily  seen,  that  the  plot  before  us  is  the 
work  of  Phelps  alone,  conceived  and  contrived  for  his  own  gain, 
and  to  gratify  his  own  revenge ;  that  the  agents  of  the  railroad 
company,  misled  and  deceived,  have  furnished  him  redundant 
means  and  subordinates  of  his  own  choice.  Gay,  while  livino-  if 
not  an  instrument,  was  a  dupe.  Lake  is  manifestly  an  instrument 
in  Phelps'  hands. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  malice  of  Phelps  cannot  be  understood 
without  knowing  the  character  and  circumstances  of  him  who 
was  the  object  of  his  revenge.     Abel  F.  Fitch  was  a  native  of 
Connecticut,  aged,  when  he    appeared   before  you,  forty-three 
years.     He  had  a  strong  mind  and  considerable  education.     He 
came  to  Michigan  in  1837,  and,  with  a  fortune  belonging  to  him- 
self and  wife,  which  was  small  in  Connecticut,  he  was  a  rich  man 
in  the  oak  openings  of  Michigan.     ]STo  man,  not  even  one  among 
all  that  cloud  of  accusers  which  gathered  around  him  here,  ever 
charged  him  with  insincerity  or  falsehood.     He  whom  you  saw 
brought  here  as  a  felon  on  the  19th  of  April,  was  on  the  7th  of 
that  month,  elected,  and  without  a  dissenting  ballot,  as  I  have 
been  told,  justice  of  the  peace  and  supervisor  of  his  town.     He 
was  gentle,  just,  and  humane,  the  friend  and  patron  of  the  poor, 
and  their   gratitude  crowned   him  with   unequalled   popularity. 
You  have  seen  the  house  of  Henry  Phelps  in  Sylvan.     You  re- 
member how  dark  and  desolate  it  was — its  low,  naked  walls,  its 
windows  glazed  with  clapboards,  its  scanty  furniture,  its  doors 
closed  and  suspiciously  fastened,  its  master  and  mistress  abroad 
all  over  the  state,  looking  up  long  lost  relations,  while  a  male- 
factor   was    pursuing    his    dangerous    vocation    there,    unseen. 
You  remember  the  half-thatched  barn,  that  was  empty  of  every 
thing  but  refuse  hay  to  conceal  unlawful  things  in  the  manger. 
You  remember  the  fuel  gathered  from  the  waste  timber  of  the 
railroad,  although  the  dwelling  was  almost  in  the  midst  of  the  fo- 
rest.    How  truly  all  this  illustrates  the  darkness  of  the  spirit  that 
inhabited  there.     You  have  seen,  also,  the  dwelling  of  Abel  F. 
Fitch,  at  Michigan  Centre,  shaded  with  trees  planted  by  his  own 
hands.     It  is  neat,  spacious  and   elegant.     You  remember  the 
prairie  rose  clustering  over  its  piazzas  and  verandahs.     Though 


536  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

the  owner  of  the  mansion  was  childless,  yet  its  chambers  were 
wont  to  ring  with  the  merry  voices  of  children.  Books,  pictures, 
and  musical  instruments  meet  you  on  every  side.  The  garden  ex- 
hibits the  flowers  of  every  month  from  early  spring  till  the  re- 
turning frosts.  Ample  orchards  yield  the  choicest  fruits  ;  a  park 
filled  with  deer,  and  a  lake  in  which  the  wild  birds  forget  their 
native  home,  increase  the  attractions  of  the  domain.  That  domain 
extends  over  five  hundred  acres ;  and  when  you  saw  it,  was  cover- 
ed with  wheat  ready  for  the  harvest,  and  cattle,  which  proved  not 
only  the  care  but  the  enlightened  taste  and  public  spirit  of  a 
country  gentleman.  Was  this  the  home  of  an  incendiary,  a  con- 
spirator, a  felon  ?  "Were  not  these  felicities  of  fortune  enough  to 
excite  the  malice  of  an  enemy  to  the  exaltation  of  revenge  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  trust  that  I  have  proved  that  the  conspiracy  al- 
leged in  this  case,  presents  an  immaterial  issue,  and  is  false  in  fact ; 
that  the  case  rests  on  evidence  of  admissions  only,  proved  by  three 
witnesses,  Gay,  Phelps,  and  Lake ;  that  the  evidences  of  those  ad- 
missions are  false,  because  the  facts  supposed  to  be  confessed  are 
impossible,  while  the  admissions  are  unworthy  of  credit,  because 
they  are  unsupported  by  circumstantial  evidence,  and  the  witnes- 
ses who  present  them  are  unworthy  of  belief,  and  their  testimony 
is  contradictory,  and  is  in  conflict  with  facts  incontestibly  es- 
tablished. If  these  positions  are  true,  it  follows  that  this  prosecu- 
tion is  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  against  the  defendants.  You 
have  evidence  of  that  conspiracy  in  the  malicious  threats  of  Wes- 
cott  and  Phelps  ;  in  an  allusion  by  Phelps,  showing  an  understand- 
ing with  Wescott ;  in  a  negotiation  between  Phelps  and  Gay  to 
predicate  a  plot  on  the  casual  burning  of  the  depot  in  Detroit,  on 
the  19th  of  November  last,  a  plot  for  the  ruin  of  innocent  men  ; 
in  the  fraudulent  manufacture  of  those  harmless  but  fearful  to- 
kens, contrived  to  obtain  credit  for  the  narrative  of  Phelps ;  in 
the  fraudulent  transfer  of  those  tokens,  by  those  who  fabrica- 
ted them,  to  the  possession  of  Gay  and  of  Filley  ;  and  in  the  cun- 
ningly devised  narrative  of  Phelps  and  Lake.  But  I  will  not  fol- 
low that  subject  further.  It  belongs  to  another  prosecution — a 
different  tribunal — perhaps,  to  a  distant  jurisdiction.  It  is  enough 
for  our  present  purpose  that  the  defendants  are  not  guilty. 

Gentlemen,  in  thq  middle  of  the  fourth  month,  we  draw  near 
to  the  end  of  what  has  seemed  to  be  an  endless  labor.  "While  we 
have  been  here  events  have  transpired,  which  have  roused  national 


DEFENCE  OF  ABEL  P.  FITCH,  AND  OTHERS.  537 

ambition — kindled  national  resentment — drawn  forth  national  sym- 
pathies, and  threatened  to  disturb  the  tranquillity  of  empires.  He 
who,  although  He  worketh  unseen,  yet  worketh  irresistibly  and 
unceasingly,  hath  suspended  neither  His  guardian  care  nor  His 
paternal  discipline  over  ourselves.  Some  of  you  have  sickened 
and  convalesced.  Others  have  parted  with  cherished  ones,  who, 
removed  before  they  had  time  to  contract  the  stain  of  earth,  were 
already  prepared  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  There  have  been 
changes,  too,  among  the  unfortunate  men  whom  I  have  defended. 
The  sound  of  the  hammer  has  died  away  in  the  workshops  of 
some ;  the  harvests  have  ripened  and  wasted  in  the  fields  of  others. 
Want,  and  fear,  and  sorrow  have  entered  into  all  their  dwellings. 
Their  own  rugged  forms  have  drooped;  their  sunburnt  brows 
have  blanched ;  and  their  hands  have  become  as  soft  to  the  pres- 
sure of  friendship  as  yours  or  mine.  One  of  them — a  vagrant 
boy — whom  I  found  imprisoned  here  for  a  few  extravagant  words, 
that  perhaps,  he  never  uttered,  has  pined  away  and  died.  Another, 
he  who  was  feared,  hated  and  loved  most  of  all,  has  fallen  in  the 
vigor  of  life, 

"  hacked  down, 
His  thick  summer  leaves  all  faded." 

"When  such  an  one  falls,  amid  the  din  and  smoke  of  the  battle- 
field, our  emotions  are  overpowered — suppressed — lost  in  the  ex- 
citement of  public  passion.  But  when  he  perishes  a  victim  of  do- 
mestic or  social  strife — when  we  see  the  iron  enter  his  soul,  and 
see  it,  day  by  day,  sink  deeper  and  deeper,  until  nature  gives 
way,  and  he  lies  lifeless  at  our  feet — then  there  is  nothing  to  check 
the  flow  of  forgiveness,  compassion  and  sympathy.  If,  in  the 
moment  when  he  is  closing  his  eyes  on  earth,  he  declares :  "  I 
have  committed  no  crime  against  my  country  ;  I  die  a  martyr  for 
the  liberty  of  speech  and  perish  of  a  broken  heart" — then,  indeed 
do  we  feel  that  the  tongues  of  dying  men  enforce  attention,  like 
deep  harmony.  Who  would  willingly  consent  to  decide  on  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  one  who  has  thus  been  withdrawn  from  our 
erring  judgment  to  the  tribunal  of  eternal  justice?  Yet  it  cannot 
be  avoided.  If  Abel  F.  Fitch  was  guilty  of  the  crime  charged  in 
this  indictment,  every  man  here  may  nevertheless  be  innocent  ; 
but  if  he  was  innocent,  then  there  is  not  one  of  these,  his  associ- 
ates in  life,  who  can  be  guilty.  Try  him,  then,  since  you  must- 
condemn  him,  if  you  must— and  with  him  condemn  them.  But 


538  FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 

remember  that  you  are  mortal,  and  he  is  now  immortal ;  and  that 
before  the  tribunal  where  he  stands,  you  must  stand  and  confront 
him,  and  vindicate  your  judgment.  Remember,  too,  that  he  is 
now  free.  He  has  not  only  left  behind  him  the  dungeon,  the  cell 
and  the  chain  ;  but  he  exults  in  a  freedom,  compared  with  which, 
the  liberty  we  enjoy  is  slavery  and  bondage.  You  stand,  then, 
between  the  dead  and  the  living.  There  is  no  need  to  bespeak  the 
exercise  of  your  caution — of  your  candor — and  of  your  imparti- 
ality. You  will,  I  am  sure,  be  just  to  the  living,  and  true  to  your 
country ;  because,  under  circumstances  so  solemn — so  full  of  awe 
—you  cannot  be  unjust  to  the  dead,  nor  false  to  your  country,  nor 
your  God. 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


A. 


PAGE. 


Abolition  of  Slavery  (see  Emancipa- 
tion). 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  and  Intervention  215 

Agitation  and  Compromises 108 

AMERICAN  STEAM  NAVIGATION 222 

American  Fisheries,  The 254 

Amin   Bey,  debate  on 321 

Anti-masonry  Vindicated 34 

Apportionment  for  California 358 

ARCTIC  AND  PACIFIC   OCEANS 236 

ARGUMENTS,  FORENSIC 391 

Ayes  and  Nays  on  Welcome  to  Kossuth  185 

Ayes  and  Nays  on  Dixon's  Seat 283 

B. 

Bank  of  the  IT.  S.,  Remarks  on 17,  30 

Boundary  of  Texas 69 

Bounty  to  Texas 97 

Bulwer,  Clayton  and,  Treaty 376 

Burke's  Supposed  Speech 225 


c. 

CALIFORNIA,  ADMISSION  OF,  SPEECH.  .51,  95 

Its  Interests 247 

Privileges   to    Emigrants    to ....  323 

Census  of 358 

Revenues   of. 344 

Apportionment  for 358 

Canal,   St.   Marie's,   Debate 357 

Catlin's  Indian  Gallery 370 

Census,  The  Debate  on 296 

Clay,  Henry,  and  Intervention 213) 

Clayton  and  Bulwer's  Treaty 376; 

CLAYTON,  JOHN  M.,  Defence  of 376 

COLLINS  STEAMERS  The,  Speech  on 222 

Collins  Steamers,  Debate 352; 

COLUMBIA,  Dis.  OF,  FREEDOM  IN,  Speech  1 1 1  j 
Compromises,  Remarks  on    61,  94,  109,  312 

Contested  Seat  of  Senator  Dixon 278 1 

Contested  Seat  of  Senator  Yulee 347 

Cooper  vs.  Greeley,  Case  of 391 

Currency,  The  Remarks  on 27 


D. 

PAGE. 

DEBATES  IN  SENATE  OF  UNITED  STATES.    284 
On  Rev.  Theobald  Mathew's  Re- 
ception   284 

Discipline  in  the  Navy 286 

The  Right  of  Petition 287 

Granting  Land  to  Emigrants.. .   289 

The  Census 296 

Sir  John  Franklin 298 

Internal  Improvement  in  New 

States 302 

The  Patent  Laws 308 

Peon  Slavery 311 

The  Compromise  Bill 312 

Reception  of  Amin  Bey 321 

Pre-emption  to  Emigrants 322 

Mining  Privileges  to  Emigrants  328 

Commerce  of  the  Pacific 326 

A  Mint  in  New  York 328 

The  Senatorial  Term 332 

Maj.  Gen.  Winfield  Scott 334 

Cheap  Postage 336 

Revenues  of  California 344 

Improvement   of    Rivers    and 

Harbors 345 

Contested  Seat  of  Senator  Yulee  347 
The  Repeal  of  the  Fugitive 

Slave  Law 348 

Pension  to  "Widow  of  Gen.  Worth  351 

Collins  Steamers 352 

Steamers  to  Hamburg 353 

Louis  Kossuth's  Letter 355 

Duties  on  Gifts  to  Convents... .   366 

Expedition  to  Japan 356 

St.  Marie's  Canal ...  357 

Apportionment  for  California. .   358 

The  Patent  Laws 361 

War  Steamers  for  Harbor  De- 
fence   367 

Catliu's  Indian  Gallery 370 

The  Fisheries 373 

The  Clayton  &  Nicaragua  Treaty  376 
Death  of  Senator  Upham,Eulogy  387 
(See  VoL  III  for  continuation.) 


5-10 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  L 


Deposits,  Removal  of,  Speech 

Detroit  Trial,  Argument 

District  of  Columbia,  Emancipation  in 
Dixon,  Senator,  Contested  Seat,  Speech 
Domain,  the  Public,  Speech 

E. 

Edmonds,  Judge,  and  Freeman's  Case 

EMANCIPATION 87,  107,  111, 

Emancipation  in  District  of  Columbia 

Emigrants,  Grant  of  Lands  to 

Equilibrium  of  North  and  South 

EUROPE,  FREEDOM  IN,  Speech 

Everett,  Edward,  and  the  Fisheries. . . 
Expedition  to  Japan,  Debate 

F. 


PAOX. 

I*  I. 

523' 

HI  Internal  Improvements,  Debate 302 

INTERVENTION,  Speech 196 


l.V, 


419 


and  Hungary. 

Henry  Clay 202 

Monroe 213 

Washington 206,  210 

.Invention,  Argument  on 516 

•9  IRISH  PATRIOTS,  Speech 186 

J. 


289 
62 


196  Jay,  Madison,  and  Hamilton 90 

260J  Japan,  Expedition  to 356 

356  Jones  vs.  Van  Zandt,  Case  of 476 


K. 

',  Speech. . .  .172, 


Genet 

Lafayette 

Washington 

Kossuth's  Letter,  Printing  of,  Debate . 

L. 


Father  Mathew,  Reception  of  ........  284 

FISHERIES,  The  Whale.  .............   286  J0880™- 

Fisheries,  The  American  (Cod)  .......   254 

Fisheries,  The  American  ............  373 

FITCH,  ABEL  F.  and  Others,  Case  of.  .  .   523 
Flogging  in  the  Navy,  ..............   285 

FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS  ...............  391 

Case  of  Cooper  vs.  Greeley,  Law 

of  Libel  ..................   391 

William  Freeman.  .  ...........   409  Lafavette  and  Kossuth  ..........  183( 

iug.tive  blaves.  .     ..........  ^LANDS,  THE  PUBLIC,  Speech 

Jones  vs.  \  an  Zandt  ...........  47  6  •         where  Located 

Many  vs.  TreadweU,  Invention  51  6;          free  to  Settlers 
Abel  F.  Fitch  4  Others,  Detroit  523  L         he  Hi  her>  \  _  ;.;;.""6 
Frank  m,  Ben,    and  Kossuth  .  .   1,9  LAW  QF  LlBEL  Argument 

Franklin,  Sir  John,  Search  for,  Debate  298  ^       gix  Mmion^8Speech 
FREEDOM  in  Dis.  Columbia,  Speech..  .  .   111. 

In  Europe,  Speech  .............   196J  ~\[ 

Of  the  Public  Lands,  Speech  ----   156 

In  the  Territories,  Speech.  ......  51,  94  Madison,  Jay,  and  Hamilton 

National,  Slavery  Sectional  ......     71  1  Many  vs.  Tread  well,  Argument 

Universal  .....................     92  'Mathew,  Father,  Speech  for 


(See  also  Emancipation  and  Slavery.)        Maynard,  Hon.  W.  H 

Freeman,  Wm.,  Case  of,  Argument.  .  .".  409|MAYORS,  ELECTION  of  by  the  People..  . 

FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS,  Speech  .........  132iMeagher,  Thos.  F.,  Liberation  of  ...... 

FUGITIVE  SLAVES,  Argument  for  .......  476  Memoir  ........................... 

Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1793  ..........  479,  MEMOIR,  For  Index  to,  see  page  ...... 

Violates  the  Ordinance  of  1787..  .  493  MnanA  SYSTEM,  Speech  ............. 

Conflicts  with  the  Constitution.  .  .  500  j  Mint,  The  New  York,  Debate  ........ 

Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1850  .........  65  Monroe  and  Intervention  ............ 

Its  Repeal  ....................  348| 


178 
179 
182 
183 
221 
355 


216 
156 
158 
162 
130 
391 
37 


90 

516 

284 

18 

10 

186 

xiii 

xci 

1 

328 
213 


Gallery,  Catlin's  Indian,  Debate 

Genet  and  Kossuth 

Greeley  <fe  McElrath,  Cooper  vs.,  Argu. 

H. 

Hamburgh  Steamers,  Debate 

Hamilton,  Jay,  and  Madison 

Higher  Law,  The 66,  74,  108, 

Hospitality  not  a  Crime 

Hungary  and  Intervention 


Navy,  Discipline  in  the 285 

370iNew  Bedford  and  the  Whale  Fisheries  252 

1 82 ! NEW  MEXICO,  Speech 119 

391  New  Mexico,  its  Constitution 130 

And  Texas 99,  125 

°- 

90,  O'Brien,  Smith,  Speech  for 186 

130. Oceans,  Arctic  and  Pacific,  Survey  of.  236 

65  Ocean  Steamers, 222,352,  353 

196  'O'Connell  and  O'Brien 190 


V 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  L 


541 


P. 


PAGE. 


Pacific,  Commerce  of,  Debate 326 

Pacific,  Commerce  of,  Speech 236 

Patent  Laws,  The,  Debate 308,  361 

Patriots,  The  Irish,  Speech 186 

Peon  Slavery,  Debate 311 

Petition,  Right  of,  Vindicated 287 

Population  of  United   States,   Actual 

and  Prospective 56 

Postage,  Cheap,  Debate 336 

"  Pressure,  The,"  of  1834,  its  History..  37 

Its  Causes 42 

Its  Remedy 49 

Pre-emption  to  Emigrants,  Debate. ...  322 

Privileges  to  Miners  in  California 323 

Proviso,  The  Wilmot 79 

And  Algernon  Sydney 102 

Public  Domain,  The,  Speech 156 

PUBLIC  LANDS,  The,  Speech 156 

Where  Located 158 

Free  to  Settlers. .  .16 


PAGE 
The  Public  Domain 156 

Welcome  to  Louis  Kossuth. . .  172,  178 
Liberation  of  the  Irish  Patriots.. .   186 

Freedom  in  Europe 196 

Intervention 196 

American  Steam  Navigation 222 

The  Collins  Steamers 222 

Survey  of  the  Arctic  and  Pacific .   236 

The  Whale  Fisheries 236 

The  American  Fisheries 254 

The  Cod  Fisheries 254 

Contested  .Seat  of  Mr.  Dixon 278 

(See  Vol.  Ill  for  continuation.) 

Steamers,  The  Collins,  Speech 222 

Survey  of  the  Arctic  and  Pacific  Oceans  236 
Sydney,  Algernon  and  Freedom 102 


T. 


Territories,  Freedom  in  the,  Speech.  .51,  94 

j  Texas,  Boundary  Discussed 69 

Texas,  Bounty  to,  Considered 97 

Texas  and  New  Mexico 99,  125 

Tracy,  Hon.  Albert  H 26 

Removal  of  Deposits,  Speech 14  Treadwell,  Many  vs.,  Argument 516 

Right  of  Petition  Vindicated 287  TKEATY,  THE  NICARAGUA,  Speech 376 

Rivers  and  Harbors,  Improvement  of. .   345 

TJ. 


Russell,  W.  T.,  Letter  from 252 

s. 

Scott,  Winfield,  Maj.  Gen.,  Debate 334 

Senatorial  Term,  Rantoul's,  Debate. . .   332 

Six  Million  Loan  Bill,  Speech 37 

SLAVERY,  Remarks  on,  63,  71,  74,  80, 

85,  87,  107,  111,  119,  311 

Sectional,  Freedom  National 71 

Peon,  Debate  on 311 

Slaves,  Number  of  in  Dis.  of  Columbia  115 

Fugitive  Law  of  1793 479 

Of  1850 65 

(See  also  Fugitive  Slaves.) 
SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK       1 

The  Militia  Bill 1 

Election  of  Mayors  by  the  People     10 

Removal  of  the  Deposits 14 

The  Six  Million  Loan 37 

SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  U.  STATES     51 
Freedom  in  the  New  Territories..     51 

Admission  of  California 51 

The  Compromise  Bill 94 

Freedom  in  the  Territories 94 

Emancipation  in  Dis.  of  Columbia  111 
Freedom  in  District  of  Columbia.   Ill 

Freedom  in  New  Mexico 119 

French  Spoliations,  Indemnities. .   132 

VOL.  1—35. 


Union,  The  Remarks  on 16,  81,  89 

United  States  Bank 17,  30 

Universal  Freedom 92 

Upham,  Senator,  Eulogium  on 387 

V. 

Van  Buren,    John,  and  the   Freeman 

Case 410, 415,  472 

Van  Zandt,  Jones  vs.,  Argument 476 

W. 

War   Steamers   for   Harbor   Defence, 

Debate 367 

Washington  and  Intervention 206,  210 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  Texas 68 

Slavery 68 

Defended 256,  264,  274,  374 

WHALE  FISHERIES,  THE,  Speech 236 

And  New  Bedford 252 

Widow  of  Gen.  Worth,  Pension  to. ...  851 

Wilmot  Proviso  Defended 79,  102 

Wright,  Silas,  &  the  Freeman  Case.  .410, 475 

Y. 

Yulee,  Senator,  Contested  Seat  of. 847 


GEOBAL  DIVISION. 


VOLUME   I. 

I.— BIOGKAPHICAL  MEMOIE. 

n.— SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 
III.-SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
IV.— DEBATES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

V.— FORENSIC  ARGUMENTS. 


VOLUME    II. 

VI.— NOTES  ON  NEW  YORK. 

VII.— ANNUAL  MESSAGES  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE. 
VIIL— SPECIAL  MESSAGES  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE. 
IX.— OFFICIAL  CORRESPONDENCE. 
X.— PARDON  PAPERS. 


VOLUME    III. 

XL— ORATIONS  AND  DISCOURSES. 

XII.— OCCASIONAL  SPEECHES  AND  ADDRESSES. 
XIII.— EXECUTIVE  SPEECHES. 
XIV.— POLITICAL  WRITINGS. 

XV.— GENERAL  CORRESPONDENCE. 
XVI.— LETTERS  FROM  EUROPE. 
XVII.— SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  U.  S.,  CONTINUED. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


J< 


'"' 


ID 


r\PP    3  0 


1978  ; 


973 


41584 


y  -** 


TTMTtnrDCTTV  ^T  r  A  T  TCYVDMT  A 


1158  00144  8777 


UTHERN  REGIONAL  L  BRARY  FACIL  TY 


IIIH    I   II    "'•'  '"    * 

A    001  156495     2 


